[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11347

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20461-KMW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN CAMERON CAIN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 16, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11347 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 Page: 1 of 5 
2

John C. Cain appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial 

based on new evidence and the denial of an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the 

district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial, which was 

based on two newly discovered police reports that showed he was involuntarily 

committed under Florida’s “Baker Act,” Fla. Stat. §§ 394.451; 394.463. He argues 

that this new evidence could not have been discovered before trial, because he was 

heavily medicated and could not assist his counsel. Cain also argues that the 

evidence was material, because it supported his insanity defense and showed that 

the government presented evidence it knew to be false. Finally, he argues that the 

district court should have at least held an evidentiary hearing on the matter.

Following an incident in which Cain, drunk and high, pointed an Ak-47 at a 

mail carrier, Cain was indicted for forcibly assaulting a federal officer using a 

deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b), brandishing a firearm 

during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). Cain was sentenced to 300 months’ 

imprisonment. During his trial, Cain presented an insanity defense, and while 

describing Cain’s history of mental illness, Cain’s counsel mentioned that Cain had 

been “Baker Acted” for being a danger to himself or others on several occasions. 

During the government’s closing argument, the government stated that Cain was 

Case: 16-11347 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 Page: 2 of 5 
3

not “Baker Acted” at the time of the incident, and there was no record of any 

“Baker Acting” or history of psychiatric illness. 

A district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 779, 782 (11th Cir. 2007). A 

district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial is also 

reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434, 1438 

(11th Cir. 1998).

“Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant 

a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Motions 

for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are “highly disfavored” and 

“should be granted only with great caution.” See United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 

1121, 1151 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“A new trial is warranted based upon circumstances coming to light after 

trial only if the following five part test is satisfied: (1) the evidence was in fact 

discovered after trial; (2) the defendant exercised due care to discover the 

evidence; (3) the evidence was not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the 

evidence was material; and (5) the evidence was of such a nature that a new trial 

would probably produce a different result.” United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267, 

1273 (11th Cir. 1995). “[F]ailure to satisfy any one of these elements is fatal to a 

motion for new trial.” Id. at 1274. “[T]he acumen gained by a trial judge over the 

Case: 16-11347 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 Page: 3 of 5 
4

course of the proceedings makes [the judge] well qualified to rule on the basis of 

affidavits without a hearing. United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944, 994 (11th Cir. 

1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cain’s motion for a 

new trial, because Cain did not show that he could not have obtained these reports 

before trial through the exercise of due diligence. Cain asserts that he obtained the 

police reports through FOIA requests, but offers no credible explanation why he or 

his attorney could not have submitted these FOIA requests before trial. 

Additionally, even though Cain argues that he could not assist counsel because he 

was heavily medicated while in pretrial custody, he was able to offer assistance to 

his counsel by identifying the hospitals where he claim to be “Baker Acted” before 

trial. And even though Cain’s counsel was able to request medical records from 

those hospitals, his failure to also request the police records that Cain eventually 

obtained through FOIA requests was a failure to exercise due diligence. When the 

medical records were unavailable, a reasonable step would have been to seek 

documentation of the Baker Act commitments from another source, such as a 

police report. Without evidence of due care to uncover relevant evidence, Cain has 

not met the criteria for a new trial. See Lee, 68 F.3d at 1273–74. 

To the extent that Cain argues that the government’s presentation of false 

testimony is a separate ground for a new trial, the district court properly denied his 

Case: 16-11347 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 Page: 4 of 5 
5

motion on that ground, because it was not filed within 14 days of the verdict as 

required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(2). 

Finally, because the district court could determine that Cain did not meet the 

criteria for a new trial based on the record, it did not abuse its discretion by 

denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-11347 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 Page: 5 of 5