1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S (1) MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION (ECF #387), (2) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 

(ECF #384), (3) MOTION TO SEE (ECF #383), AND (4) MOTION FOR 

ORAL ARGUMENT (ECF #385) 

 On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Defendant Curtis Scott of aiding and 

abetting a carjacking, aiding and abetting the use and/or carrying of a firearm during 

a crime of violence, and making a false statement to a federal agent. Following his 

conviction, Scott moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. (See ECF ## 144, 162). The Court held an evidentiary hearing 

in connection with the motion and denied the motion in a written Order dated May 

10, 2018. (See ECF #380.) 

 Scott has now filed four new motions with the Court: a motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s May 10, 2018, order denying his motion for a new 

trial (ECF #387), another motion for a new trial (ECF #384), a motion “to see” (ECF 
2 

#383), and a motion for oral argument (ECF #385). For the reasons that follow, the 

Court DENIES all of Scott’s currently-pending motions. 

I 

 The Court first turns to Scott’s motion for reconsideration of its May 10, 2018, 

order denying his motion for a new trial. (See ECF #387.) Motions for 

reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7.1(h). That rule provides: 

Generally, and without restricting the Court's discretion, 

the Court will not grant motions for rehearing or 

reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled 

upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable 

implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a 

palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and 

other persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been 

misled but also show that correcting the defect will result 

in a different disposition of the case. 

E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(h)(3). 

 The Court has reviewed Scott’s motion for reconsideration and concludes that 

he is not entitled to relief. None of the arguments that Scott has raised persuade the 

Court that it palpably erred when it denied his motion for a new trial. Nor has Scott 

shown that the correction of any alleged error by the Court would result in a different 

disposition of his motion. Accordingly, Scott’s motion for reconsideration is 

DENIED. 
3 

II 

 The Court next turns to Scott’s motion for a new trial. (See ECF #384.) In 

this motion, Scott argues that he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered 

evidence. Specifically, Scott says that he has uncovered new evidence that one of 

the government’s key witnesses at trial, Dexavior Evans, lied during his testimony 

about Scott’s involvement in the carjacking. Scott’s new evidence is a sworn 

declaration from a witness, Michael Browder, in which Browder says that Evans 

“confided in [Browder] and told [Browder] that [Evans] got a time-cut because he 

lied and told the court that his uncle [Scott] was involved in the carjacking” even 

though Scott “was not there.” (Id. at Pg. ID 4602.) Scott contends that Browder’s 

declaration entitles him to a new trial. 

 This argument is nearly identical to one Scott made in his initial motion for a 

new trial. In that motion, Scott argued that he was entitled to a new trial based on 

the declarations of two inmates who said that Evans told them that he had lied during 

his testimony about Scott’s involvement in the carjacking. The Court reviewed and 

rejected that argument in its May 10, 2018, order denying Scott’s motion for a new 

trial. (See ECF #380 at Pg. ID 4581-85.) For all of the same reasons that the Court 

declined to grant a new trial based upon the declarations of the other new witnesses, 

the Court declines to grant a new trial based upon Browder’s declaration. 

Accordingly, Scott’s currently-pending motion for a new trial is DENIED. 
4 

III 

 Next, Scott has filed what he calls a “Motion to See.” (See ECF #383.) In this 

motion, Scott details numerous health problems from which he claims to be 

suffering. It is unclear to the Court what relief, if any, the motion “to see” seeks. To 

the extent that the Court can discern any request for relief in this motion, it appears 

that Scott is asking the Court to re-open the evidentiary hearing on his motion for a 

new trial based on his medical condition. As the Court has previously explained, the 

Court does not believe that such relief is warranted. (See April 2, 2018, Order, ECF 

#348.) Nor, for the reasons stated above, has Scott shown that the Court should 

reconsider its decision to deny his motion for a new trial. Accordingly, Scott’s 

motion “to see” is DENIED. 

IV 

Finally, the Court addresses Scott’s motion for oral argument. (See ECF 

#385.) As in Scott’s motion “to see,” Scott explains in his motion for oral argument 

that he is suffering from multiple health conditions, and he appears to ask the Court 

to re-open the evidentiary hearing and/or hold a new hearing on his motion for a new 

trial. Scott has not persuaded the Court that that relief is warranted. Accordingly, 

Scott’s motion for oral argument is DENIED. 
5 

V 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Scott’s 

currently-pending motions (ECF ## 383, 384, 385, and 387) are DENIED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 29, 2018 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on May 29, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764