Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01344/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01344-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Orlando Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. No. 90-1344 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-240) 

ORLANDO MARTINEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellant Orlando Martinez appeals prose from the 

district court's denial of his motion for a new trial based on 

newly discovered evidence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. Defendant -was 

convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and 

possession with intent to distribute heroin. His conviction was 

affirmed by this court. United States v. Martinez, Nos. 89-1130 & 

89-1138, unpub. order at 8 (10th Cir. Sept. 7, 1990). 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-1344 Document: 010110118830 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 1 
t 

A district court may grant a new trial on the ground of newly 

discovered evidence within two years after final judgment or, if 

an appeal is taken, within two years of the mandate affirming the 

judgment. United States v. Cook, 705 F.2d 350, 351 (9th Cir. 

1983). A motion for a new trial should be approached cautiously 

and is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. 

United States v. Plum, 558 F.2d 568, 576 (10th Cir. 1977); United 

States v. Maestas, 523 F.2d 316, 320 (10th Cir. 1975). A denial 

of the motion will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Latimer, 780 F.2d 868, 870 (10th 

Cir. 1985); Maestas, 523 F.2d at 320. 

A defendant seeking a new trial must establish the following: 

"The newly discovered evidence must be more than 

impeaching or cumulative; it must be material to the 

issues involved; it must be such as would probably 

produce an acquittal; a new trial is not warranted by 

evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could have 

been discovered and produced at trial." 

United States v. Bradshaw, 787 F.2d 1385, 1391 (10th Cir. 1986) 

(quoting United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 403 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836 (1977)). Defendant has not satisfied 

the standard. 

Defendant's newly discovered evidence concerns newspaper 

reports that a police informant who was a prosecution witness 

provided police with false information in several cases. Even 

assuming that defendant could obtain admissible evidence to the 

same effect, the relationship between the newspaper cases and the 

defendant's case is not readily apparent. Moreover, defendant 

does not indicate how this witness's testimony was integral to his 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1344 Document: 010110118830 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 2 
' 

conviction, nor does he identify any specific untrue statements by 

this witness. Instead, defendant argues that the impeachment 

value of this new information would have cast doubt upon the 

government's overall case. Evidence which is cumulative or 

impeaching is insufficient to warrant a new trial. See Mesarosh 

v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 9 (1956); Lewis v. United States, 

771 F.2d 454, 456-57 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1024 

(1985). Thus, defendant's grounds are insufficient to warrant a 

new trial and the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the motion without a hearing. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1344 Document: 010110118830 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 3