FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 33 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 9- cr-0 00 27 -MHT-WC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us EUGENE LAMAR PENDLETON , l lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 2, 2 01 1) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, COX, Cir cu itJu dg e, an d HUNT, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Honora ble Will is B. Hunt, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

designation.I.

App el la ntEug en e Lam ar Pe nd le to n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s o n fe de ral dru g an d fi rearm s ch arg es . Duri ng th e co ur se of the pro ceed in gs th atres ul te d i n a m is tri al , th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed edth ata su rv ei ll an ce v id eo pu rp orti ng to de pi ct Pen dl et on en ga gi ng in a crac k c oc ai ne trans act io n a ctua ll y de pi ct edso m eo ne els e. Fo ll owi ng th e m is tri al , a fed eral gra ndjury is su eda supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t ch arg in g P en dl et on with, am on g o th er thi ng s, p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di strib ut e m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) (Co un t 2 ); p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e, invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) (A)(i ) (Co un t 3 ); a ndpo ss es si on of afir earm by a con vi ct edfel on , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 9 24 (e) (C ou nt4). Pen dl et on ba se d t wo p ret ria l m ot io ns on th e g ov ern m en t’s co nc es si on : a m ot io n t o d is m is s t he supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t, wh ic h h e co nt en de d was tai nt edby th e te st im on y

of ago ve rn m en t ag en t t ha t Pe nd le to n was en ga ge d i n c rackco cai ne tra ns act io ns ; an d am ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce re co ve redin a Decem be r 24 , 20 08 , sea rch pu rs uantto a warra ntth athe co nt en de d was supp orte d b y th e in te nt io na ll y

or r eck le ss ly fals e st at em en ts of De te ct iv e R.K. Jo hn so n, t he affi an t of fic er. The co urt d en ie d b ot h m ot io ns , andth e cas e p ro ceed edto tri al , wher e nu m ero us witne ss es tes ti fie d a ga in stPen dl et on . Ulti m at el y , th e jury fou ndhi m 2gu il ty on t he th ree a fo rem en ti on edco un ts . Pen dl et on m ov edfora ne w tri al ,

es se nt ia ll y

rei te rat in g h is supp res si on arg um en ts , whi ch th e co urt d en ie d wi th ou t op in io n. In a po st -tr ia l o rd er co nf irming it s ea rli er o ral de ni al of t he m ot io n t o supp res s, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Det ect iv e Jo hn so n a ct edwith re ck le ss di sr eg ardforth e trut h i n i de nt ifyin g P en dl et on in th e aff id av itas the crac k s el le r bu t t ha t s up pr es si on was u nwa rran te d b ecau se th e aff id av it , eve n wi th ou t t he la ng ua ge id en ti fy in g P en dl et on , est ab li sh edpro babl e cau se su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt a warra nt . II . On ap pe al , Pen dl et on rai se s fo uris su es . Firs t, h e arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o d is m is s t he supe rs ed in g in di ct m en t b ecau se th e g ran d ju ry th atis su editwas e xp os edto a go ve rn m en t wit ne ss ’s fal se tes ti m on y an d a ls o re vi ewedev id en ce t ha t was reco ve redfol lo win g anun la wfu l s earc h. Se co nd , he a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s b ecau se Dete ct iv e Jo hn so n’s fa ls e st at em en ts , m ad e wit h reck le ss di sr eg ardforth e tr ut h, t ai nt edth e res t o f th e aff id av itsu ch th atpro babl e cau se di d n otex is t t o i ss ue th e warra nt . Thir d, h e arg ue s t ha t t he ev id en ce pr es en te d a t t ria l was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi cthi m of t he ch arg edoff

en se s b ecau se it was in ad equa te to co nn ecthi m to th e res id en ce wh ere t he co ntrab an d was

3reco ve red . Fin al ly, he arg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , th atth e d is tri ctco urt

ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b ecau se it s p os t-v erd ic t ru li ng th atDete ct iv e Jo hn so n a ct edwith re ck le ss di sr eg ardforth e truth, i f kn own pr io r to tri al , wou ldha ve res ul te d i n h is acqui tt al on all ch arg es . Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , read in g p art ie s’ bri efs , andha vi ng th e b en efi t o f or al arg um en t, we af

firm Pen dl et on ’s con vi ct io ns .

II I. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o d is m is s an in di ctm en t fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, b utrev ie w it s l eg al reas on in g de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. W ethe ra ld , 63 6 F .3d13 15 , 13 20 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The gra ndjury is pe rm it te d t o c on si de r ev id en ce t ha t o th erwi se wou ldbe in ad m is si bl e—i nc lu di ng ev id en ce o bt ai ne d i n v io la ti onof t he Fo urth Am en dm en t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. C

al an dr a , 41 4 U.S. 3 38 , 34 –5 5, 9 4 S . Ct. 6 13 , 62 0– 23 , (1 97 4) (ho ld in g t ha t t he ex cl us io na ry rul e d idno t ap pl y

to gra ndjury pr oc eed in gs ). Whe re the go ve rn m en t u se s o r el ic it s fa ls e te st im on y du rin g c riminal pr oc eed in gs , itwil l n otam ou ntto pro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t unl es s t he pro se cu to r ei th er: (1) kn owi ng ly use d p erju redtes ti m on y ; o r (2 ) fai le d t o c orrectwhathe lat er le arn edto be fal se tes ti m on y . Uni te d Sta tes v. McN ai r , 60 5 F .3d11 52 , 12 08 (11 th 4Ci r. 20 10 ). Even th en , th e te st im on y m us t b e m at eri al . Id

. at12 08 –1 1 (h ol di ng th atpro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t d idno t o ccu r be cau se th ere was no th in g t o s ug ge st th atth e te st im on y

actua ll y was fa ls e). If p ro se cu to ria l m is co nduc t o ccu rs inth e co nt ex t o f a g ran d ju ry

pro ceed in g, t he pro pe r rem edy is to di sm is s t he in di ct m en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Acc et tu ro , 85 8 F .2d67 9, 6 81 (11 thCir . 19 88 ). Nev ert he le ss , “ di sm is sa l o f anin di ct m en t fo r pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t i s an ex tre m e sa nc ti on whi ch sh ou ldbe in freque nt ly uti li zed .” Id. Eve n i f anerro r oc cu rs be fo re a g ran d ju ry , itwil l n otbe cau se to qu es ti on anin di ct m en t u nl es s t he erro r “ subs ta nt ia ll y

in flu en ced ” th e g ran d jury ’s dec is io n t o i ss ue ch arg es , or i f gr av e d oubtex is te d t ha t t he de ci si on was fr ee fr om su ch in flu en ce. Ban k o

f No va Sc ot ia v. Uni te d Sta tes , 48 7 U.S. 2 50 , 26 3, 1 08 S. Ct. 2 36 9, 2 37 8 (1 98 8) (ho ld in g th aterro rs di d n otsubs ta nt ia ll y in flu en ce t he gra ndjury’ s d eci si onto ch arg e th e de fen da nt s wh ere agra ndjury in ve st ig at io n l as te d 2 0- m on th s an d “ in vo lv [ed ] do zen s o f wit ne ss es an d t ho us an ds of d oc um en ts ”). The re i s n ot hi ng in th e rec or d t o s ug ge stth atth e te st im on y of the go ve rn m en t’s wi tn es s b efo re the gra ndjury, whi ch was b as edon hi s p ers on al kn owl ed ge at t he ti m e, was in te nt io na ll y fal se . Even if i t was , itdi d n ot subs ta nt ia ll y

in flu en ce t he gra ndjury’ s d eci si on , as t he ch arg es in th e supe rs ed in g in di ct m en t wer e b as edon in ci de nt s u nr el at edto th e al le ge dl y fal se tes ti m on y . 5Last ly, ev enif t he cu rren cy on Pen dl et on ’s per so n was ob ta in edin vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urthAm en dm en t, the grandjury is no t p recl ud edfro m rev ie win g i t. IV . W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s as a m ix edqu es ti onof l aw an d fa ct , rev ie win g l eg al qu es ti on s de no vo an d fa ctua l que st io ns forcle ar erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma rt in el li , 45 4 F .3d13 00 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Sim il arl y , we rev ie w de no vo whet he r pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d t o s up po rt asea rch warran t. Id. (quo ta ti onom it te d) . To o bt ai n awarran t t o s earc h ade fen da nt ’s res id en ce, l aw en fo rcem en t m us t co nv in ce t he au th or iz in g m ag is tra te th atpro babl e cau se ex is ts forth e se arch , whi choc cu rs “ whe n t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces all ows th e co nc lu si on th at th ere i s a f

ai r pr ob ab il it y

th atco nt rab an d o r ev id en ce o f a cri m e wil l b e fo un d i n a pa rti cu la r pl ace.” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. K ap orde lis , 56 9 F .3d12 91 , 13 10 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The aff id av itne edno t al le ge th atany il le ga l act iv ity oc cu rredat t he res id en ce. Id. St il l, i t s ho ul d “ es tabl is h aco nn ect io n be twee n the de fen da ntan d t he res id en ce t o b e se arch edan d ali nkbe twee n t he res id en ce an d any crim in al act iv it y .” Id. ; bu t s ee Un it ed St at es v. Mar ti n , 29 7 F .3d 13 08 , 13 14 –1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (ho ld in g tha t p ro babl e cau se ex is te d t o s up po rt a warra ntno twi th st an di ng th e fac t t ha t t he affi da vi t d idno t s pe ci fic al ly lin k t he 6de fen da ntto eit he r cri m in al act iv it y or t he pl ace t o b e se arch ed , bu t co nt ai ne d de ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s co nc ern in g i ll ic itact iv it ie s atth atpl ace) . Affi da vi ts supp orti ng sea rch warran ts are “ pr es um pt iv el y va li d.” Uni te d St at es v. Gamo ry , 63 5 F .3d48 0, 4 90 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). Howev er, a d efen dantm ay at ta ck th e g ov ern m en t’s af

fid av itby m ak in g asubs ta nt ia l p rel im in ary sh owi ng th atth e aff

id av itin cl ud eda fal se st at em en t t ha t was eit he r m ad e: (1) kn owi ng ly an d i nt en ti on al ly or (2 ) wit h re ck le ss di sr eg ardforth e trut h. Fra nk s v. Del aw ar e , 43 8 U.S. 1 54 , 17 1, 9 8 S . Ct. 2 67 4, 2 68 4 (1 97 8) . Nev ert he le ss , “ ev enin te nt io na l o r rec kl es s o m is si on s wi ll in va li da te a warra nton ly if in cl us io n o f th e o m it te d fa ct s wo ul d h av e p rev en te d afin di ng of pr ob ab le cau se .” Ka

po rdel is , 56 9 F .3dat 1 30 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (qu ot at io n a nd al te rat io n o m it te d) . The b ur de n i s o n t he de fen dantto est ab li sh th at , “ ab se ntth os e m is rep res en ta ti on s o r omiss io ns , pro babl e cau se wou ldha ve be enlac ki ng .” Gamo ry , 63 5 F .3dat 4 90 –9 1 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . In as se ss in g wh ethe r th e al le ge d fal se st at em en ts inanaffi da vi t ar e m at eri al , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d d is reg ardth e ch al le ng edpo rti on s o f th e aff id av it . Ka

po rdel is , 56 9 F .3dat 1 30 9. Th e co urt m us t t he n d et erm in e whe th er the rem ai ni ng po rti on s o f th e aff id av itest ab li sh pr ob ab le cau se . Id. If the affi da vi t, ev enaft er ex ci si ng th e al le ge dl y off en si ve co nt en t, re m ai ns su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh pro babl e cau se , th enno furth er i nq ui ry is 7requi red . Id. (rejec ti ng th e arg um en t t ha t a i nt en ti on al ly or reck le ss ly fals e

in fo rm at io n t ai nt s an en ti re af fid av itev enaft er i t i s ex ci se d) . W e n eedno t co ns id er wh ethe r Det ect iv e Jo hn so n a ct edwith re ck le ss di sr eg ardforth e trut h wh enswea rin g t ha t Pe nd le to n was ob se rv eden ga gi ng in crac k d eal s. As su m in g ar gu en do th athe di d a ctwith re ck le ss di sr eg ardforth e tru th , th e aff

id av it , in de pe nd en t o f an y refe ren ce t o P en dl et on , con ti nu edto co nt ai n s ta te m en ts co nc ern in g d ru g t ran sa ct io ns at t he res id en ce t he warran t ta rg et ed . Becau se th es e st at em en ts were s uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh pro babl e cau se th at do cu m en ts rel at in g t o dru g t ran sa ct io ns wou ldbe fou ndat t ha t re si de nc e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by den y in g t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s. V. The su ffi ci en cy

of the go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce p ro du cedat t ria l i s a que st io n of law s ub ject t o de no vo rev ie w. Uni te d Sta tes v. S po erke , 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 44 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . Inrev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, the in qu iry is wh ethe r, aft er vi ewin g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p ro se cu ti on with a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in th e g ov ern m en t’s fa vo r, an y rat io na l t rie r of

factco ul d h av e fo un d t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he cri m e b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Id . As su ch , we wil l n otdi sturb agu il ty verd ic t u nl es s “ no tri er 8of

factco ul d h av e fo un d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Y os t , 47 9 F .3d81 5, 8 18 –1 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . It i s t he jury’ s re sp on si bi li ty to wei gh an d re so lv e co nf li ct s i n t he ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pea rs on , 74 6 F .2d78 7, 7 94 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). The d is tri ctco urt i s pr oh ib it edfro m

ass es si ng th e cre di bi li ty of wit ne ss es or s ub st itut in g i ts own jud gm en t o f gu il t o r in no cen ce fo r th atof t he jury. Uni te d Sta tes v. Bu rn s , 59 7 F.2 d 9 39 , 94 1 (5 th Cir . 19 79 ). Thu s, t he jury’ s cr ed ib il it y de te rm in at io n m

us t st an d u nl es s t he tes ti m on y is in cred ib le as am at te r of law. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ste el e , 17 8 F .3d12 30 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Test im on y is leg al ly “ in cred ib le ” o nl y if i t is “un be li ev ab le on it s fa ce” a nd“ rel at es to fact s t ha t t he witne ss co ul d n otha ve po ss ib ly obs erv edor e ve nt s tha t co ul d n othave oc cu rredun de r th e la ws o f na tu re.” Id . To co nv ic t a d efen dantun de r 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , th e g ov ern m en t m us t pr ov e th atth e d efen da nt(1) kn owi ng ly (2) p os se ss edm ari juan a (3 ) wit h i nt en t t o di st rib ut e it . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha rr is , 20 F.3d44 5, 4 53 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Each of th es e el em en ts , in cl ud in g i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , m ay be pro ve n b y

di rector ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Id. Po ss es si on m ay

be actua l o r co ns tru ct iv e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ti no co , 30 4 F .3d 10 88 , 11 23 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). In t he lat te r cas e, co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o ccu rs 9whe n the “ de fen da ntm ai nt ai ne d d om in io n o r co ntro l o ve r th e dru gs or o ve r th e

pr em is es wher e th e dru gs are l oc at ed .” Har ris , 20 F.3dat 4 53 . (quo ta ti on om it te d) . As s uc h, wh ena de fen da ntown s o r othe rwis e ex erci se s co ntro l o ve r a res id en ce whe re co nt rab an d i s fo un d, h e m ay be fou ndto be in co ns tru ct iv e p os se ss io n o f th atco nt rab an d. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 44 7 F .3d13 27 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); se e a ls o Un it ed

St at es v. Mor al es , 86 8 F .2d15 62 , 15 73 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ) (h ol di ng th atren t re cei pt s an d a n e le ctric bi ll foranap art m en t i n d efen da nt ’s nam e was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh hi s d om in io n a ndco ntro l o ve r th atap art m en t). To es tabl is h p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 ), th e g ov ern m en t m us t s ho w th at : (1 ) th e de fen da ntpo ss es se d t he fir earm ; an d (2 ) th e fi rearm in qu es ti on “ he lp ed , fu rth ered , pro m ot ed , or a dv an ced ” th e dru g t raff ic ki ng act iv it y . Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Ti mmon s , 28 3 F .3d12 46 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). To s up po rt aco nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ), th e g ov ern m en t m us t pr ov e th at : (1 ) th e d efen da ntwas aco nv ic te d fe lo n; (2) th e d efen da ntkn ew he was in po ss es si on of afir earm ; an d (3 ) th e fi rearm affe ct edor wa s i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce . Uni te d Sta tes v. Wright , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Afte r th e g ov ern m en t i nt ro du cedth e m ari juan a an d g un s re co ve reddu rin g th e Dece m

be r 24 , 20 08 sea rch , itin tro du cednu m ero us witne ss es to tes ti fy th at 10Pen dl et on res id edat the ad dr es s wh ere the sea rch oc cu rred . It al so in tro du ced

wit ne ss es who ha d s een Pen dl et on en ga ge d i n dru g d eal s atth atad dr es s an d i n actua l p os se ss io n o f th e rec ov eredgu ns . Pen dl et on di d n otde m on st rat e th atth e te st im on y of a ny of th es e wit ne ss es was l eg al ly inc red ib le . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atth e g ov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce upo n wh ic h a reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndhi m gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t o f eac h o ffen se of co nv ic ti on . VI. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s o n m ot io ns fora ne w tri al forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Th omp so n , 42 2 F .3d12 85 , 12 94 –9 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Cri m in al arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , ho wev er, are rev ie wedfor pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fo nt en ot , 61 1 F .3d73 4, 7 37 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Rev ers al un de r th is st an da rdis pe rm it te d o nl y when : (1 ) th ere i s erro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n; (3) th ataffe ct ’s a de fen da nt ’s subs tant ia l ri gh ts ; an d (4 ) “ se rio us ly affect s th e fai rn es s, i nt eg rity

or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id. (quo ta ti on om it te d) . An erro r is pl ai n wh enitis “ ob vi ou s” or “ cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.” Id. Thu s, “ th ere c anbe no pl ai n e rro r whe re the re i s n o p rece de ntfro m th e Supr em e Co urt o r th is co urt d ire ct ly reso lv in g i t.” Id. (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) .

11A def en da ntm ay

m ov e a co urt fo r a n ew tr ia l, wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt ret ai ns di sc ret io n t o g ran t i n t he “ in te res ts of ju st ic e.” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 33 (a). A m ot io n b as edon ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce m us t b e fi le d wi th inth ree years o f th e ve rd ic t. Fed . R. Cri m . P. 33 (b )(1 ). Whe n am ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i s b as edon ne w ev id en ce, the ev id en ce i n que st io n: (1) m us t h av e in factbe endi sc ov eredaft er tri al ; (2 ) m

us t b e d is co ve redfol lo win g t he ex erci se of due care ; (3 ) can no t b e

“ m erel y cum ul at iv e o r im

pe ach in g” ; (4 ) m

us t b e m at eri al ; an d (5 ) m us t b e “ of su ch a n atur e th ata ne w tri al wou ldpro babl y pro du ce a d iff

eren t re su lt .” Th omp so n , 42 2 F .3dat 1 29 4 (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Fail ur e to sat is fy an y of the se requi rem en ts wil l b e fat al to th e m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Id . Whe n aco urt i s co nv in cedth ata ne w tri al wou ldno t p ro du ce a d iff eren t re su lt , itne edno t i nq ui re i nt o the ot he r requi rem en ts . Uni te d Sta tes v. Sta re tt , 55 F.3d15 25 , 15 54 (11 thCir . 19 95 ). Alt ho ug h e vi de nc e g oi ng so le ly to a wi tn es s’s cr ed ib il ity is di sf av or ed un de r th is fiv e-p arttes t, n ewly-di sc ov eredev id en ce m ay rai se qu es ti on s co nc ern in g t he fai rn es s o f th e tr ia l i ts el f. Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 61 3 F .2d57 3, 57 5 (5 thCir . 19 80 ) (h ol di ng th ata juro r’s sh ort, ex p ar te co nt actwith t he di st ric t co urt d idno t i m

pu gn th e fai rn es s o f th e p ro ceed in gs su ffi ci en t t o warran t a n ew tri al ).

12Inth e ab se nc e o f an y co nt ro ll in g aut ho rit y

est ab li sh in g t ha t a d is tri ctco urt’s po st -v erd ic t o pi ni on co nf irming it s o ral rul in g o n apre tri al m ot io n t o s up pr es s i s su ffi ci en t g ro un ds fora ne w tri al , Pen dl et oncan no t es tabl is h t ha t t he di st ric t co urt pl ai nl y erre d i n re fu si ng to gra nta ne w tri al on th is ba si s. In an y ev en t, a n ew tr ia l was un warra nt edbe cau se ev enif Det ect iv e Jo hn so n h adno t t es ti fie d a t t ria l atall , th e num ero us ot he r wit ne ss es who tes ti fie d t o P en dl et on ’s con tro l o ve r th e co nt rab an d a ndth e res id en ce wh ere i t was reco ve redov erwh el m in gl y est ab li sh ed Pen dl et on ’s gu il t. Ou r co nf id en ce i n t he jury’ s v erd ic t i s u nd is tu rb ed .

VII . Fo r th e ab ov e-s ta te d re as on s, we af firm Pen dl et on ’s con vi ct io ns . AFFIRMED.

13