Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03222/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnie D. Ford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United State:; Co· m oi Apr,e,.11 ·- . . ·• "'":"' .,_ 

APR 161991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3222 

v. 

JOHNIE D. FORD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-20049-01) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

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 is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

John.ie D. Ford appeals from the district court's denial of 

his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 90-3222 Document: 010110034183 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 1 
\ 

a recantation of testimony. Mr. Ford argues that five witnesses 

have submitted affidavits containing new information exculpating 

him, and that a key government witness has recanted damaging trial 

testimony. The district court denied the motion for a new trial 

on the basis that the newly discovered information was available 

to Mr. Ford at the time of trial, and that the purported 

recantation was not, in fact, a recantation at all. We affirm. 

Mr. Ford was convicted by a jury on one count of possession 

of cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of possession 

of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking offense. On 

March 22, 1990, Mr. Ford filed his prose motion for a new trial 

based on newly discovered evidence in the form of the affidavits 

of Robert Haywood, June Jones, Vincent Hunter, Chris Anderson, and 

Abraham Gorelick. These affiants are either friends or associates 

of Mr. Ford, some of whom were present at the search of Mr. Ford's 

home, and they generally state that they have not seen Mr. Ford in 

the possession of drugs. 

In order to prevail on a motion for a new trial based on 

newly discovered evidence, the moving party must show the 

evidence: 1) is more than impeaching or cumulative; 2) is 

material; 3) would probably produce an acquittal; and 4) was not 

known at the time of trial, nor could it have been discovered 

through reasonable diligence prior to trial. United States v. 

Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 403 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 836 

(1977). See also United States v. McMahan, 852 F.2d 337, 339 (8th 

Cir. 1988). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3222 Document: 010110034183 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 2 
i/ 

\ 

The affidavits offered by Mr. Ford do not qualify under Allen 

as newly discovered evidence that would justify granting his 

motion for a new trial. The affidavits of Hunter and Anderson are 

dated July 26, 1989, and July 27, 1989, respectively, indicating 

they were taken prior to Mr. Ford's trial on August 1 and 2 of 

1989. Since these statements were dictated to and handwritten by 

Mr. Ford's attorney, it is clear that Mr. Ford had access to this 

information prior to trial, and it can hardly be classified as 

newly discovered evidence. The affidavit of Jones cannot be 

deemed newly discovered evidence because Mr. Ford has not shown 

why the information contained in it was not available at the time 

of trial. Also, the Jones affidavit is confused, contradictory, 

and would almost certainly not have affected the result of the 

trial. The Gorelick affidavit consists of hearsay that would not 

be admissible at trial and, therefore, would not have changed the 

outcome. Therefore, the district court properly held that the 

affidavits of Hunter, Anderson, Jones, and Gorelick do not 

constitute newly discovered evidence. 

Mr. Ford claims the testimony of Robert Haywood was critical 

to his conviction because Mr. Haywood testified he had seen Mr. 

Ford with cocaine in January 1989. Mr. Ford now presents two 

affidavits which he claims show that Mr. Haywood has recanted his 

testimony tying Mr. Ford to drug trafficking. Specifically, the 

Haywood affidavits dated October 18, 1989, and January 10, 1990, 

state that "I didn't see Johnnie with no drug on Feb. 3, 1989. He 

didn't sell me any drug," and "Johnny never sold me no drugs on 

Feb. 3, 1989. " 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3222 Document: 010110034183 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 3 
J 

First, these statements cannot be considered newly discovered 

evidence because Mr. Haywood testified at trial and could easily 

have been cross-examined on this issue by Mr. Ford. Also, Mr. 

Ford fails to demonstrate how this information would have affected 

the outcome of the trial. In fact, whether Mr. Haywood observed 

Mr. Ford selling cocaine on February 3, 1989, seems of little 

consequence. 

Second, Mr. Haywood testified at trial that, although he was 

not present when the search warrant was executed at Mr. Ford's 

home on February 3, 1989, he had been involved in a cocaine 

purchase with Mr. Ford sometime in January 1989. We believe the 

district court was correct in concluding that Mr. Haywood's 

affidavits do not constitute a recantation of his testimony 

because the statements in the affidavits are not necessarily 

inconsistent with his testimony. Mr. Haywood did not testify at 

trial that he saw Mr. Ford in possession of cocaine on February 3, 

1989. Thus his affidavits did not point to the falsity of 

testimony leading to Mr. Ford's conviction. A trial court should 

not grant a motion for a new trial unless it finds that the 

testimony at trial was actually false. United States v. Page, 828 

F.2d 1476, 1478-79 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 989 (1987). 

There was no need for the district court to conduct a hearing in 

this case absent a recantation of testimony. In addition, Mr. 

Haywood subsequently recanted his recantation, stating that he was 

pressured into the original recantation by members of Mr. Ford's 

family and Mr. Ford's attorney. See R. I., 62, Transcription of 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3222 Document: 010110034183 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 4 
' 

; 

l 

Taped Interview of January 23, 1990, Between ATF Agent Alex 

McCauley and Robert Haywood. 

Therefore, we hold the district court did not err in 

concluding that the affidavits offered as newly discovered 

evidence could not be classified as such, and that the purported 

recantation of Robert Haywood did not constitute sufficient 

grounds for granting Mr. Ford's motion for a new trial. 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3222 Document: 010110034183 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 5