P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 1667

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . G ER M A N Q U I LES, A ppel l ant

N o. 09- 1686

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . G LO RI A Q U I LES, A ppel l ant2 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m . N os . 07- 391- 1 and 07- 391- 3) H onor abl e J an E. D uB oi s , D i s t r i ctJ udge

A r gued J une 23, 2010

B E FO R E : SM I T H , FI SH E R and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: A ugus t17, 2010)

J onathan J

. Sobel ( ar gued) L aw O ffi ces of J onathan J

. Sobel 1420 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1420 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 A t t or neyforA ppel l antG erm an Q ui l es J ohn J

. G r i ffi n ( ar gued) L a w O f f ice o f Jo h n J. G rif

f in 239 Sout h C amac St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 A t t or neyforA ppel l antG l or i a Q ui l es3 M i chae l L

. L evy U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R ober tA

. Z auzmer A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y , C h ief o f A p p e a ls A ndr ea G

. Foul kes ( ar gued) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney F ran k A

. L ab o r, III A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I . I NT RO DU CT I ON T hi s m at t er comes on befor e t hi s C our t on appea l fr om j u d g me n t s o f

c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e e n t e r e d a g a i n s tt wo d ef en d a n ts i n the D istri ct C o u rtin w h ich th e g o v ern m en t’ s cas e r e l i e d h e a v i l yo n t h e t e s t i mon yo f a n u n d e r c o v er in f o rm a n t. A f

ter th e ju ryf

o u n d d e f e n d a n ts g u iltya t th e trial, a s t at e gr and j ur yi ndi cted t he i nform anti n an unr el at ed m at t eron char ges of chi l d r ape a nd ot herhei nous s exualG e rm a n Q u iles w a s th e p re sid e n t o f th e c o m p a n ya n d M a ria 1 Q ui l es w as i t s co- pr es i dent

. G l or i a and G erm an Q ui l es w er e coo w n e r s o f

t h e p r o p e r t y. 4 crim es. O n ce d ef

e n d a n ts l ea rne d ab o u t th e inf o rm an t’ s i ndi ctm ent , t heys ough t a new t r i al underFed. R

. C r i m . P. 33. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e ir re q u e st a n d th e yn o w a p p e a l to th is C o u r t. F o r th e re a so n s w e g iv e in th is o p in io n , w e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng the mot ion s fo r a n e w trial. W e a lso re

jec t d e f e n d a n ts ’ in d iv id u a l ch a llen g e s to th e su f f ic ien c yo f

th e e v id e n c e , the p ro c e d u re u se d in s ent enci ng, and the s ubs t ant i ve s ent ence i m pos ed.

I I . BA CKGROUND G erm an Q ui l es and M ar i a Q ui l es , hus band and w i fe, ow ned A ruba, I nc. , a money - s ervi ci ng bus i nes s oper at i ng as
“ A ru b a C h e c k C a s h in g a n d A u to T a g s ” in N o r th Phi l adel ph ia. T hei rdaught erG l or i a Q ui l es al s o w or ked at

1 A ru b a C h e c k C a s h i n g a n d s e r v e d a s t h e c o m p a n y’ s s e c r e t a r y. T he companyo ff

ered s ervi ces s uch as m oneyw i r es , m oney o rd e rs, a n d c h e c k c a sh in g . T h e b u sin e ss w a s s u b jec t to fede r al r egulati ons r el at i ng t o m oneyl aunder i ng w i t h G erm an Q uil es bei ng res po nsi ble for i t s com pli ance w i t h these regul at i on s.

A . T he G overnm ent ’ s I nves t i gat i onSom e tr ans act i ons t ook m ul t i pl e vi s i t s t o compl et e. T he 2 governm entchar ged 16 i ndepende ntact s of m oneyl aunder i ng betw een Sept ember20, 2006, and J anuary12, 2007. T he part i es l aunder ed s ever al t hous and dol l ar s dur i ng eac h tr ans act i on for a t ot al of $175, 900. 5 I n J ul yof 2006, the governm entbegan a n i nves t i gat i on i nt o pos s i bl e moneyl aunder i ng at A ruba C heck Cashi ng. I m m i gr ati on and C us t om s E nfor cementSpeci al A gentSt even G al ambos, w ho rel i ed on an unde r coveri nform antnamed H ect orA y al a, l ed the i nves t i gat i on. G alambos i ns t ruct ed A y ala t o en t er A ruba C heck C ashi ng and i den t i fyhim sel f as a d rug deal er ’ s as s i s t antw ho neede d m oneyl aunder ed, m aki ng s ur e t o as k for the name of the empl oy ee a s s i s t i ng hi m . For eac h vi s i t , G al ambos g av e A y al a a ba g ful l of s m al l bi l l s and told A y ala to re q u est l arg e b ills, m o n eyo rde rs, an d w ir e t r ans fer s . A y al a coul d offe rup t o 10% of the moneythat A r u b a was l a u n d e r i n g a s a “ f e e ” i n e x c h a n g e f

or t he l aunder i ng. A ft erhe exi t ed the s t or e, A y al a t ol d G al ambos w hatoccurr ed, and A y al a’ s r eci t at i on w oul d be con fi r m ed by a r ecor di ng devi ce thatG al ambos had c oncea l ed i ns i de A y a la’ s ja c k e t o r p a n ts p o c k e t. A y a la tu rn e d o v e r th e n e w ly laund ered bil l s, m on ey orders , and w i re t ransfer receipts to G a la m b o s . O p e ra tin g u n d e r G a lam b o s’s in stru c tio n s, A y a la ent ere d A ruba C heck Cashi ng as a conf i dent i al i nform ant30 d if f e re n t ti m e s. O n h is f irst v isit A y a la e x p lain e d h is 2 cr i m i nal purpos e, and on the r ema i ni ng vi s i t s he br ought m o n e yf o r lau n d e rin g o r p ick e d u p lau n d e re d m o n e y . A y a la r epor t ed thatG erm an Q ui l es , M ar i a Q ui l es , and G l or i a Q ui l esT he D i s t r i ct C our t i n i t s opi ni on deny i ng defe ndant s ’ m ot i ons 3 f o r a n a c q u itt a l sta ted th a t “A y a la w a s p a y in g d e f e n d a n ts ex tr ao rdin aryfe es. A typ ical cu stom er a t A rub a p aid n o m o re t han $. 99 perm oneyor der , butA y al a w as pay i ng hundr eds of dol l ar s fort he s ame s ervi ce. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Q ui l es , N o. 07- 391, 2008 W L 3 5 6 1 6 1 8 , at*9 ( E

. D

. Pa. A ug. 13, 2008) (cit ati o n s to tri al tran script om itted). T h e c o n v e rsa tio n s w e re in S p a n ish b u t w e re tra n sla ted to 4 E n g l i s h f o rt h e j u r y. 6 a ll p e rf o rm e d m o n e y lau n d e rin g tra n sa c tio n s fo r him w h ile k n o w i n g t h a tt h e y w e r e h e l p i n g t o l a u n d e rd ru g m o n e y. A y a la a lso re p o rte d th a t t h e Q u iles e s a c c e p ted “ f e e s” w e ll a b o v e n o rm a l f

o r th e typ e o f

tra n sa c tio n s i n v o lv e d in th e ir se rv ice s. W h e n A y a la d e liv e r e d th e lau n d e re d m o n e yto

3 G al ambos he gave hi m a s um m ary of t he event s t hato cc u rr ed i n A ruba C h ec k C as hi ng. U nfor tunat el y , A y al a’ s r ecol l ect i on i s t he bestevi dence of w hathad t aken pl ace i ns i de A ruba C heck Cashi ng as t he r ecor d i ngs pr oduced f r om t he hi dden rec o rdin g d ev ice a re o f e x tr em elyp o o r qu ali tyan d en ti re sec ti o n s o f th em in so m e ins tan c e s are inau d ible. H o w ev er, t here are s om e aud i ble i ncrim i nati ng st at em ents on the tapes. E

. g . , S u p p . A p p . 7 5 (A y ala states tha t he h as “ d rug m o n ey ”); id . at 6 8 (m a n A y a la id e n tifie s a s G e rm a n Q u iles a sk s if A y ala w an ts “m o n eylaun d ry , m o n ey ” [ sic]). 4

B . T ri al and C onvi ct i on7 A f t e r th e g o v e rn m e n t c o n c lu d e d its in v e s tig a tio n , a g ra n d ju ryc h a rg e d G e rm a n Q u iles , M a ria Q u iles , an d G lo ria Q u iles w ith c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it m o n e ylau n d e ri n g in v i olat i on of 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 95 6(h) ( C ou nt O ne) and 16 sep a ra te act s of m oneyl aunder i ng orai ding an d abett i ng m oney lau n d e rin g in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 , 1 9 5 6 (a )(3 ) (C o u n ts T w o thro u g h Sevent een)

. D efe ndant s pl ed notgui l t yand the c a s e p ro c e e d e d to a ju ry tria l. A tt r i al , t he governm ent ’ s cas e r es t ed pr i m ar i ly o n the t es t i m onyof thr ee w i t nes s es . T he fi r s tw i t nes s , I R S em pl oy ee T ed C un n ing h am , ex p la i ned t he money l aunder i ng r equi r ement s t hatappl i ed t o A ruba C heck Cashi ng. G al ambos w as the s econd w i t nes s and he r ecount ed the det ai l s of h is i nves t i gat i on and hi s i nt er act i ons w i t h t he under coveri nform ant

. G al ambos, how ever , coul d nott es t i fy about m os t of w hat had occurr ed i ns i de of A rub a C heck C a s h i n g b e c a u s e h e r e ma i n e d o u t s i d e th e b u s i n e s s d u r i ng A y ala’s ex cu rsi o n s. T h e g o v ern m en t call ed A y a la as th e third of thes e w i t nes s es . A y al a desc ri b ed hi s act i ons and gave a s t ep-b y - s t ep ana l y s i s of the eve nt s thathi s hi dden devi ce r ecor ded. Forexampl e, A y al a expl ai ned w her e he w as s t andi ng i n t he s t or e an d ident i fi ed the voi ces hear d on t he r ecor ding s. H e al s o t es t i fi ed t o non- verbal act i ons t hat d e f e n d a n ts to o k , su c h a s s m ili n g o r n o d d in g , an d to unr ecor ded conver s at i ons s uch as hi s i ntr oduct i on t o G erm an Q ui l es atw hi ch A y al a expl ai ned thathe w as t her e t o l aunder d ru g m o n e y. It is o b v io u s th a t A y a la’ s te stim o n yw a s e ss e n tial to t he g o v e r n me n t ’ s c a s e . W i t h o u th i s e x p l a n a t i o n s , th e s e cr et r ecor di ngs w oul d have been bar el y us abl e s ni ppet s o f sounds8 and part i al conver s at i ons . U nder s t andabl y , ther efor e, defe ndant s bui l t t hei rs t r at egyar ound di s cr edi t i ng A y al a. T h u s, i n hi s openi ng s t at ement , t he att orneyforG erm an Q u ile s to ld th e ju ry th e yw o u ld s e e a n in f o rm a n t “ ru n a m o k ,” byacc us i ng i nnocentpeopl e i n or dert o getpai d. A pp. at260. T he gover nm ent , i n contr as t , s t at ed thatA y al a had w or ked as a c o n f id e n ti a l in f

o rm a n t f o r o v e r 2 0 y e a rs, d o in g “ g o o d , o ld fas hi oned” unde r coverw ork. Id. at252. T he tr i al focus ed on t h i s c h a s m. T he j ur yr etur ned i t s ver di cton J anuary17, 2008, c o n v ictin g G e rm a n Q u iles a n d M a ria Q u iles o n a ll th e c o u n ts char ged. T he j ur y , how ever , found G l or i a Q ui l es notgui l t yof cons pi r acyt o comm i tm oneyl aunde ri ng ( C ountO ne) and of t en s peci fi c ac t s of m oneyl aunder i ng ( C ount s T w o thr ough E lev e n ). B u t itc o n v icte d h e r o f th e re m a in in g six sp e c if ic act s of m oneyl aunder i n g ( Count s T w el ve t hr ough Se v e n t e e n )

. Def

e n d a n t s mov e d f

o r a j u d g me n t o f a c q u i t t a l or a new t r i al butt he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed thei rr eques t s on A ugus t13, 2008, i n an or derent er ed on A ugus t14, 2008. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Qu i l e s , No

. 0 7

- 3 9 1 , 2 0 0 8 WL 3 5 6 1 6 1 8 ( E

. D. P a. A u g . 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 ).

C . P o st-T rial E v en ts S o o n a f ter th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied d e f e n d a n ts’ p o sttrial m o tio n s f

o r a c q u itt a l o r a n e w trial, a g ra n d ju ryin P en n sy lvan ia i n d ict ed A y ala o n m u lti p le co u n ts of statu tory s exual as s aul t , inv o l unt arydevi at e s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h a m i no r under t he ag e of 1 3 y ears , and oth e r s i m i l ar cr i m es.M ar i a Q ui l es fi l ed the m ot i on and the otherdefe ndant s j oi ned 5 in it. I nas m uch as M ar i a Q ui l es and G l or i a Q ui l es or for t hatm att er 6 t he governm entdi d not appea l fr om t hei r s ent ence s , w e w i l l not d isc u ss th e ir se n ten c in g s an y f u rth e r. In f

a c t, M a ria Q u iles d id 9 A f terle a r n in g o f

A y a la’ s in d ictm e n t, all th re e d e f e n d a n ts mo v e d f o ra n e w tr i a l u n d e rFe d

. R. Cr i m. P

. 3 3

. On 5 F ebruary 2 4 , 200 9, the D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed d efen dan t s’ m ot i ons i n an or derent ered on February25, 2009, hol di ng thatt he new evi dence w as i nadmi s s i bl e i m peac hm ent e v i d e n c e . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Q u i l e s , N o . 0 7

- 3 9 1 , 2 0 0 9 WL 4 6 6 2 8 3 , a t * 5 (E .D . P a . F e b . 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen s ent ence d defe ndant s . T he C our tcal cul at ed a gui del ine sent ence forG erm an Q ui l es of 78 t o 97 m ont hs bas ed on a g u ideline offens e l evel of 28 and a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f I. G erm an Q u ile s, h o w ev er, req u ested lenien cy , co n tend ing that h e h ad le d a n ex em p lary l i fe, w or ked form anyy ear s , s erv ed i n t he nat i onal guar d and i n publ i c off

i ce, and w as 70 y ear s ol d and i nfi r m . T he g o v e rn m e n t, i n c o n tra st, e m p h a siz e d th a t m o n e ylau n d e rin g is nece s s ary for drug deal i ng t o s urvi ve, a fa ctG erm an Q ui l es appar ent l yunder s t ood. O n February 2 5 , 2009, the D i s t r i ct C our ts ent enced G erm an Q ui l es t o a cus t odi al t erm of 60 m on t hs t o b e fo l l owed b yt hr e e y e a r s of s up e r vi s e d r el ease an d itim p o sed a $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 fin e o n h im

. T h e C o u rt s ubs equent l ys ent ence d bot h M ar i a Q ui l es and G l or i a Q ui l es t o t e r ms o f f

i v e y e a r s o n p r o b a t i o n wi t h s i x mo n t hs of ho me c o n f in e m e n t. 6n o t ap p e a l at a ll. 10 G e r m a n Q u iles a n d G lo ria Q u iles n o w a p p e a l to th is C our t as ki ng us t o r ever s e t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s orde r of February24, 2009, deny i n g their R ul e 33 mot i ons fora new t r i al

. I n addi t i on, G l or i a Q ui l es ar gues t hatthe evi dence w as n o t suf fi ci entforherconvi ct i on and as ks us t o r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC ourt ’s or derof A ugus t13, 2008, deny i ng herm ot i on fora j udgm entof ac qui t t al

. Fi nal l y , G erm an Q ui l es ar gues t hatt he se n tence t he C our ti m pos ed on hi m on February25, 2 0 0 9 , w a s p r o c e d u r a l l ya n d s u b s t a n t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e . We now w i l l r efe rt o G erm an Q ui l es and G l or i a Q ui l es as “appe l l ant s , ” exc l udi ng M ar i a Q ui l es w ho has notappea l ed.

I I I . J UR I S DI CT I ON T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on beca us e the i ndi ctm ent s char g ed vi ol at i ons of fe der al cr i m i nal l aw . 18 U

. S. C

. § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on beca us e appe l l ant s fi l ed t i m el ynot i ces o f appea l aft ert hei rconvi ct i on and s ent enci ng. 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1 ; 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3 7 4 2 (a).

IV . D ISC U S S IO N A N D A N A L Y S IS A . T he I nt ere s t of

Just i ce D oes N ot R equi re a N ew T ri alI n a s ens e the new evi dence t o the ext entt hati tw as t he 7 re tu rn in g o f

th e in d ictm e n t ag a in st A y a la w a s n o t n e w ly di s cover ed. R ather , i tw as new l ycr eat ed. See Saada , 212 F. 3d a t 2 1 6 . N e v e rth e les s, w e w ill tre a t it a s th o u g h it w a s n e w ly 11 R ul e 33 pr ovi des tha ta di s t r i ctcour t“mayvaca t e any j ud gm ent and g ranta new tri al i f t he int eres t o f ju stice so r equi r es.” T her e ar e fi ve r equi r ement s thatm us tbe met b e f o re a c o u rt m a yg ra n t a n e w tr ia l o n th e b a sis o f n e w ly di s cover ed evi dence : (a ) th e e v id e n c e m u st b e in f a c t n e w ly d isc o v e re d , i. e . d isc o v e re d sin c e trial; (b ) f a c ts m us tbe al l eged f

r om w hi ch the cour tm ayi nfer di l i gen ce on the partof the movant ; ( c) the e v id e n c e re lie d o n m u st n o t b e m e re ly cumul at i ve o r i m peac hi ng; ( d) i tm us tbe m at eri al t o the i ssues i nv olved; and (e) i tm ust be suc h , and of s uch natur e, as that , on a new trial, th e n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e w o u ld p ro b a b lyp ro d u c e a n a c q u itt a l. U ni t ed St at es v. Saada, 21 2 F. 3d 210, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng G overnm entof th e V i r gi n I s l ands v. L i m a, 774 F. 2d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 5 )). W hen the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed appe l l ant s’ m ot i ons for a n e w trial o n F e b ru a ry2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , itg a v e tw o re a so n s f o r its deci s i on. Fi r s t , t he C our ts ai d t hatt he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence r egar di ng A y al a w oul d not pr oduce an a cqui t t al du ri n g a new t r i al beca us e i tw oul d notbe admi s s i bl e. W hen 7di s cover ed. A ppel l ant s cont end thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n not 8 c o n d u c t i n g a n e v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g o n t h e i rmo t i o n s . Butwe re jec t th is c o n ten tio n a s th e yd id n o t re q u e st s u c h a h e a rin g in t he D i s t r i ct C our t and even i f t heyhad theyw oul d nothave be en ent i t l ed to i tas t he C our tadj udi cat ed the mat t eron bas es not req u ir ing reso lutio n o f a f ac tual d ispu te at an ev iden ti ary hear i ng. I n anyevent , even now w e s ee n o i s s ue thatan evi dent i aryhear i ng coul d have r es ol ved as w e ar e dec i di ng the cas e on the bas i s of a s etof fa ct s t hatt r eat s A y al a as havi ng comm i t t ed and havi ng been c onvi ct ed of the s exual offe ns es for wh i c h t h e s t a t e c h a r g e d h i m. 12 th e C o u rt m a d e its ru li n g , A y a la h a d n o t b e e n c o n v icte d o f h is cr i m es and the evi dence l ikel yw oul d have pr oven t oo i nf l a mma t o r y t o b e a d mi t t e d

. Se e Fe d

. R. Ev i d

. 609 ( i m peac hm entof w i t nes s al l ow ed us i ng evi dence of convi ct i on of cr i m e) ( emphasi s ad d ed ); Fed. R

. E vi d. 403 (e v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is su b stan tia lly o u tw eigh ed b ythe d an g er o f u n fa irp rejud ice). Second, t h e C our ts ai d thatt he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence w as m er e i m peac hm entevi dence and thus coul d notform the bas i s forgr ant i ng a new tr i al “underthe pl ai n l anguage of Saada. ” Q ui l es , 2009 W L 46628 3 , at*4. A tthe s ame t i m e, 8 t he C our tdi s t i ngui s hed a c ase in w hi ch anothercour tgr ant ed a new t r i al s ol el yon the bas i s o f im p eac hm entevi dence

. See U n it ed S tat es v . L ipo w sk i, 4 2 3 F

. S u p p . 8 6 4 (D

. N

. J. 1 9 7 6 ). W hen dis t i ng uis hing L i po w ski , the C ou rtno t ed thatargua b ly L i pow s ki m ayno l ongerbe good l aw i n l i ghtof Saada

.O f c o u rse , w e re a lize th a t th e D istric t C o u rt ru led o n th e b a sis 9 of the fa ct s att h e ti m e of i t s deci s i on deny i ng t he new tr i al m ot i o n s a s i t d i d n o t h a v e a c r y s t a l b a l l a n d t h u s c oul d not for es ee t he out come of t he s t at e pr ocee di ngs . I t i s sign ifi cant t hatt he s t at e court t r i al at w hi ch the j uryconvi ct ed A y al a t ook pl ace aft erappel l ant s w er e convi cted and sent ence d and had appea l ed t o t hi s C our t

. T he appe al t erm inat ed the D i s t r i ct Co u r t ’ s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r a n e w tr i a l mo t i o n . S e e F e d

. R. C ri m . P

. 3 3 (b)(1 ). A ft erappel l ant s appea l ed R ul e 33(b) ( 1) w oul d have r equi r ed 10 th e m to m o v e f

o r a re m a n d in th is C o u rt to th e D istric t C o u rt to fi l e new R ule 33 m oti on s. T he D i s t r i ctC o u r tj uryr eturned the ver di cton J anuary17, 11 2 0 0 8 , an d it there fo re a p p ea rs th at th e thre e-y ea r w ind o w fo r a 13 W e thin k th a t w e sh o u ld f o cu s o n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s seco nd reas on for den y i ng the n ew tri al becau se i t s fi rs t r eas on has l os ts om e of i t s per s uas i ve pow eri nas m uch as fi ve m ont hs aft er t he D i s t r i ct C our t i s s ued i t s February 24, 2 009 o p i ni on deny i ng a new tr i al , a s t at e j uryconvi ct ed A y al a of t he off ens es char ged aga i ns thi m . C onvi ct ions, unl i ke 9 i ndi ctm ent s , m aybe admi s s i bl e underFeder al R ul e of E v id e n c e 6 0 9 , a n d th e b a re f a c t o f a c o n v ictio n is n o rm a lly n o ts o i n f

l a mma t o r y t ha ti ts h o u l d b e e x c l u d e d u n d e rF e d

. R. E v id. 40 3

. M o reo v er, w e se e n o rea so n w h y a f ter A y ala’s s t at e convi ct i on appel l ant s coul d nothave f i l ed new R ul e 33 m ot i ons i n t he D i s t r i ctC ourt s eeki ng a new tr i al though t hey di d notdo s o. T hus , w e w i l l focus on th e p ermanent , not 10 t r ans i ent , fea tur es of the C our t ’ s deci s i on. 11ne w tr i a l mot i o n u n d e r Rul e 3 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) i s s t i l l o p e n . W e, ho w ev er, do nots aydefi ni t i vel yt hati ti s open as none of the d ef en d an ts ha v e f

il ed an o ther m o ti o n f

o r a n e w tr ial an d there m i ghtbe otherpr ocedur al bar s t o s uch a mot i on. 14 1. St andar d of R evi ew A de t e r mi n a t i o n o f

whe t h e ri ts h o u l d g r a n ta n e w t r i al i s l eft t o t he di s cr et i on of a di s t r i ct cour t

. U ni t ed St at es v. Ci me r a , 4 5 9 F

. 3 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )

. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we nor m al l yr evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on of a ne w t r i al m ot i on un dert he def

er ent i al “abus e of di s cr et i on” s t andar d. U ni t ed St at es v . B row n, 595 F. 3d 498, 511 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( “W e w i l l r ever s e a de ni al of a Rul e 33 mot i on fora new t r i al bas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence onl yi f w e conc l ude that t he di st r i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the m o ti o n . ”). A t certai n p o ints, h o w ev er, th e D is tr ictC o u rt su gges t ed thati tw as bound as a mat t erof l aw t o deny appel l ant s ’ R ul e 3 3 m o ti ons . See Q ui l es , 2009 W L 466283, at**2, 4 ( not i ng t he “r equi r ement s ” of Saa da and then deny ing defe ndant s ’ m ot i ons beca us e “the pl ai n l anguage ” of Saada r equi r ed i tt o do s o)

. A l s o, w hen rul i ng on a l at er m ot i on t o s t ayappel l ant s ’ s ent ence s pendi ng appea l , the D i s t r i ctC our tr efe r r ed t o i t s ear l i erR ul e 33 dec i s i on and s t ated, “[t ] he C our t ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on . . . i n rul i ng on t he d efendant ’ s R ul e 33 M ot i on, w as cabi ned bycontr ol l i ng p re c e d e n t— th e F e d e ra l R u les o f E v id e n c e a n d T h ird C irc u it c a s e l a w . ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Q u i l e s , No

. 0 7

- 3 9 1 , 2 0 0 9 WL 7 6 4 3 0 6 , * 5 ( E

. D. P a . M a r . 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 )

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t we ar e r evi ew ing a l egal r athert han di s cr et i onarydeci s i on of the Di s t r i c t Cou r t , we wi l l a p p l ya d e n o v o s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w.The g overnment introduced this signe d statement at trial when 12 explaining the procedure for employing a confidential informant. (Of course , the statement also served to bolster Ayala’ s cre dibility .) The g ov e rnme nt as ke d Aya la a few q ue sti on s a bo ut t hestate me nt, but di d no t sp e nd muc h timea dd

re ssingit. We do not understand why we should cate g orize the agreement as 13 falseme re ly

be c a us eAya la did no t li ve up to his ob lig atio ns un der i t. To the contra

ry , it woul dseem that to show that an agreement was false a party makingthat claim would haveto demonstrate that the pers on makingthea gre e me nt intend e d to vio lateit when h ema deit. 15 B utt he di s t i nct i on betw een the t w o s t andar ds of r evi ew m ak es n o d iffe re n c e o n this ap p ea l bec au se w e w o u ld af firm t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r te x e r c i s i n g c o mp l e t e d e n o v o r e v i e w.

2

. T h e E v id e n c e R e lied o n M u st N o t B e M e re ly C um ul at i ve orI m peac hi ng A p p ell an ts saythat th e y a re n o t r ely ing o n m ere i m pe a c h me n t e v i d e n c e i n s e e k i n g a n e w tr i a l a n d t h us our o p i n i o n i n S a a d a t h a twe q u o t e a b o v e d o e s n o tr e q u i r e th a twe denyt hem a new t r i al

. R ather , t hey p o int outt hatw hen the governm enthi r ed A y al a as a conf i dent i al inf

or m anthe s i gned se v e ra l sta tem e n ts a c k n o w led g in g lim itatio n s o n h is c o n d u c t, in c lu d in g o n e re c iti n g th a t h e w a s “ n o t p e rm itt e d to v io late anyl aw s . ” S u p p . A pp. 1536–43. A ppel l ant s s ayt hat 12 A y al a’s fal se w ri t t en p l edg e n o t to com m i tanycri m es, c o m b in e d w ith h is c o m m is s io n o f se rio u s c rim e s, d e m o n stra te th a t th e re w a s a su f

f icie n t b a sis f

o r g ra n tin g a n e w trial. 13Though we recognize that Ayala may have had that very

intent, we are not a ware of any evidenc e in the rec ord supportinga conc lusion that he intended to do so oth er than his actual conduct. More over, Ayala’ s commission of crimes before the execution of the agreement wo uld no t ha vema dethea gre e me nt f a lsea s h is agre e me nt n ot to violate any

laws wa s prospec tive in nature. B ut we will not linger on that point and instead wil l acc ept appe llants’ characterization of the agreement as false. 16 A ppel l ant s admi tt hatthei rnew evi dence coul d be cl as s i fi ed as i m peac hm entevi dence , butt heyas s ertt hatt hey nevert h eles s ar e ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al beca us e the new e v id e n c e “ g o e s to th e f o u n d a tio n o f

th e g o v e r n m e n t’ s c a s e .” A ppel l antG l or i a Q ui l es ’ s br

. at43–44. W e agr ee w i t h appel l ant s thati n cert ai n unus ual c irc u m sta n c e s a c o u rt sh o u ld n o t d e n ya n e w trial th a t a defe ndants eeks on th e bas i s of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence m ere lyb ec au se th e e v id e n c e is i m p ea ch ing in ch ara cter. In s t at i ng ourl i m i t ed agr eem en t w i t h appel l ant s w e obs erve that R ul e 33( a) as w r i t t en perm it s cour t s t o gr anta new t r i al w hen t he int eres tof just i ce requir es i t a n d d o e s not di st i ng uis h betw een new l y di s cover ed ci r cumst ant i al and di r ect evi dence as a bas i s forgr ant i ng s uch a mot i o n . Y et w e r ecogni ze that not w i t hs t andi ng R ul e 33’ s l anguage , t her e ar e opi ni ons t hat s ayt hata courts houl d notgr anta mot i o n fo r a new t r i al on m e re im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e . B u t th e s e c a s e s d o n o t se e m to gi v e enough s i gni fi canc e t o the w or di ng of R ul e 33 w hi ch, as w e have i ndi cat ed, m akes cl earthatthe i nt er es tof j us t i ce gui d es t he court s on deci di ng R ul e 33 mot i ons and does not s ugges tt hata courts houl d di s t i ngui s h betw een i m peac hm ent and di r ect evi dence i n ma k i n g t h a t d e t e r mi n a t i on.17 A c c o rd in g ly , itis n o t s u r p r isin g to f in d th a t th e c o u rt in U n it ed S tat es v . T ag li a, 92 2 F

. 2 d 4 1 3 (7 th C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ), i ndi cat ed thatt he s t at ement s thata new tr i al s hou ld notbe gr ant ed on the b as i s of new l ydi s cover ed i m peac hm ent e v id e n c e c a n n o t be t aken a tfac e val ue. N othing in the t extor hi s t or y o f R u le 33 .

. . s uppor t s a ca t egor i cal d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n t yp e s o f e v i d e n c e ; a n d we cannots ee the s ens e of such a di s t i nct i on. I f the governm ent ’ s cas e r es t ed ent i r el yon t he un corr ob orat ed tes t i m on yof a si ng le w i t ness w h o w a s d isc o v e re d a f tertria l to b e u tterly unw o rt h y of bei ng bel i eved be caus e he ha d l i ed cons i s t ent l yi n a s t r i ng of pr evi o us cas es , t he d istric t ju d g e w o u ld h a v e th e p o w e r to g ra n t a new t r i al i n or dert o pr eventan i nnocentper s on f ro m b e in g c o n v ic te d . T h e ‘i n te re s t o f ju s tic e ,’ t he oper at i ve term i n R ul e 33, w oul d r equi r e no le s s . . . T h e ju d ic ial la n g u a g e th a t se e m s to excl ude i m peac hi ng t es t i m onyfr om t he scope o f R u le 3 3 th u s illu stra tes th e te n d e n c yto over general i ze. I ti s eas yt o confus e a pr act i ce w i t h a rul e. T he pr act i ce has been t o d en ynew t r i al s w her e the onl ynew l ydi s cover ed evi dence w as i m p ea chi ng. B utt he pr act i ce s houl d notbe ta ken t o i m pl ya rul e thateven i f the def endant p ro v e s tha t h is co n v ictio n a lm o st ce rta in ly r e sts o n a lie, th e d istric t ju d g e is h e lp les s to g ra n t a new t r i al

. D i s tr i ctj udges do n oti n fac tcons i der18 t hemsel ves hel pl es s i n s uch ci r cumst ance s , and t heyar e r i ghtnott o. Id . a t 4 1 5

– 1 6

. W e agr ee w i t h thi s s t at em entfr om T agl i a and w e do n ot bel i eve thatS aada requ i res us t o rej ecti t

. D i stri ctcou rt s do notand sh o u l d noti gnor e a c l ai m t hatt her e has been a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce j ust beca us e the new l ydi s cover ed evi dence s uppor t i ng the cl ai m coul d be ca t egor i zed a s i m peac hm enti n char act er . T agl i a i s notal one i n r ecogni zi ng t hi s poi nt

. E

. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 960 F. 2d 820, 825 ( 9t h C i r . 1992) ( “I n s om e si tuati ons . . . t he new l y - di s cover ed im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e m a yb e so p o w e rf u l th a t, i f it w e re to be b el i eved byt he tr i er of f a c t, i tcou l d rende r the w i t ness’ t e s t i monyt ot a l l yi nc red i bl e . ” ) ; U ni t e d St a t e s v. Lea r y , 37 8 F. Supp. 2d 482, 492 ( D

. D el

. 2005) ( “[T] h ere i s pr ece dent i ndi cat i ng t hati m peac hm ent evi dence al one mays om et i m es be a ba s i s fora ne w tr ial

. ”); L i pow s ki , 423 F. Supp. at868- 69 ( gr ant i ng new t r i al aft erdi s cover i ng keyw i t nes s w as u n tru th f u l in c lo s e ly re la te d m a tte rs ). A tt he s ame t i m e l ong exp eri ence has s how n that n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e th a t is m e re lyim p e a c h in g is unl i kel yt o r evea l t hatt her e has been a m i s carr i ag e of j us t i ce. T h ere m us tbe s om ethi ng m or e, i

. e. a fa ctual l i nk betw een the heart o f the w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m onyatt r i al and the new evi dence

. T hi s l i nk m us ts ugges tdi r ect l y that t he def endantw as convi ct ed w r on g ly

. See Saada , 212 F. 3d at216 ( des cr i bi ng th is lin k a s a n e c e ss a ry“ e x c u lp a to r y c o n n e c tio n ” ). W h e n th is c o n n e c tio n is n o t p re se n t, th e n th e n e w e v id e n c e is m e re lyI f a w i t nes s att he tr i al gave a p hy s i cal des cr i pt i on of the 14 cr i m i nal t hatm at ched the def endant butnew l ydi s cover ed evi dence fro m ot herper s ons w ho s aw t he cr i m e gave a co m p let elyd iffe ren t des cripti o n o f th e sa m e c ri m inal, there w oul d be an excul pat or y connec t i on betw een t he new evi dence and the cha r ge. O f cour s e, t he mer e pre s ence of thatconnec t i on w ou l d n o t c o m pel a courtt o g ranta m oti on for a new tri al , as, amon g o the rbas es fordeny i ng the mot i on, t he courtm i ght r egar d t he new evi dence as unr el i abl e orm i ghtbel i eve thatother evi dence o f

t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s g u i l ts h o u l d l e a d i tt o d e n yt he m ot i on. 19 impeachi ng and i t s r evel at i on does notw arr antgr ant i ng a new trial. 14 W hen as ked t o g ran t a n ew tr ial s ol el yon the bas i s of new i m peac hm entevi dence , a courtcar eful l ys houl d exami ne w h eth e r th e d ef

en d an t has d em o n str ated the n ec essa ry excu lp a t orycon necti on betw een the evidence an d the offen se orhas demonstr at ed that the new l ydi s cover ed evi dence t otal l yun derm i ned cri t i ca l in culpat oryevidence. A nd cou rt s, i n pr act i ce, have done s o. I n L ipow s ki , t he pr os ecut i on r el i ed on s ever al t ape r ecor d ing s t hatthe pr i m arygovernm ent w i t nes s had made. A ft ert h e tr i al , i tw as di s cover ed thatt he w i t nes s , i n eff

ect , had m anufa ctur ed a t ape r ecor di n g tha t t hr eat ened hi m and t hat he i nt ended t he thr eat s t o be att r i but ed t o an unknow n per s on. W hi l e thi s evidenc e di d notpr ove that t he defe ndant s had bee n convi ct ed w r ongl y , and i n anyevent w as notus ed att he tr i al , the cour tfound i thad “s er i ous i m pli cat i on s r egardi ng t he t ruth an d v eraci t yof [ t he w i t ness’ s] t es t i m ony ” and the evi dence “ca s t s s er i ous doubtovertheI n bot h T agl i a and D avi s , how ever , t he cour t s of appe al s found 15 otherreas on s t o aff

i rm the co nv i ct i on s.

20 a u th e n ticityo f

th e tap e s in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e .” L ip o w sk i, 4 2 3 F . S u p p . a t 8 6 7 -6 8

. Si m i l ar l y , i n T agl ia the keygovernm entw i t nes s w as a n F B I in f

o rm a n t. A f

ter th e ju ryc o n v icte d th e d e f e n d a n ts, it w as di s cover ed thatt he i nform anthad gi ven fa l s e t es t i m ony i n an ea r l i ercase. T he courtof appe al s i n l i m i t i ng ear l i er c a se s in d ica tin g th a t a n e w trial ca n n o t b e g ra n ted o n th e b a sis of new l ydi s cover ed i m p ea chmentevi dence , s t at ed thata tr i al cour thas di s cr et i on t o gr anta n ew t r i al w hen i ti s s how n t hat th e w itn e s s “ lie d c o n s is te n t l y i n a s tr in g o f p re v io u s c a s e s .” T agl i a, 922 F. 2d at415. A nd in D av is, a j uryconvi ct ed the defe ndant s on drug char ges i n par to n the bas i s of t es t i m ony o f a n u n d e r c o v e rp o l i c e o f f i c e r . S o me month s l a t e rth e s a me offi ce r w as convi ct ed of s t eal i ng drug m oneyt hatt he g o v e r n m e n t h a d c o n f

isc a ted a s e v id e n c e . T h e c o u rt in D a v is sai d that “[i ]f new l y -di scovered evi den ce es t abli shes th a t a defe ndanti n a nar cot i cs cas e h as been c onvi ct ed s ol el yon t he u n c o rro b o ra ted tes tim o n yo f a c ro o k e d c o p in v o lv e d in ste a lin g d ru g m o n e y , the ‘in ter e s t o f ju stic e ’ w o u ld su p p o rt a new t r i al underR ul e 33. ” D avi s , 960 F. 2d at825. 15
In e a c h o f

th e c a se s th a t w e h a v e d e sc rib e d , the c o u rts focus ed on w hatw e bel i eve w as t he corr ectqu est i on: w as th e re a stro n g e x c u lp a to ryc o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e n e w ly di s cover ed evi dence and the fa ct s tha tw er e pr es ent ed attr i al o r d id th e n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e st r o n g ly de m o n stra te t hatcri ti cal evi dence atthe tr i al agai ns tthe def endantw as21 veryl i kel yt o have be en fa lse? O f cour s e, thes e s t andar ds m u st be ap p li ed str ict lyan d are n o t easil ysati sfied

. In L i pow s ki , t he new evi dence s t r ongl y s ugges t ed t hatthe convi ct i on w as bas ed on fa br i cat ed evi dence

. I n T agl i a, the new evi dence s how ed thata keyw i t nes s r out i nel ycomm i t t ed per j ur yw hen t es t i fy i ng as an i nform ant , and b ecaus e the w i t ne s s ha d t e s t i fi e d i n tha tc a pa c i t ya tthe de fe nd a nt s ’ tr i a l s, t here w as greatreas on t o d ou bt the v al i dity of the con vict i on s. A n d in D av is, the ne w ev iden ce sh o w ed that th e p ri m ary w i t nes s w as a “c r ooked cop” w ho had bee n caughtt amper i ng w i t h ( i n fac t , s t eal i ng) evi dence

. T h e f a c ts in th e se th r e e c a se s c a n b e c o n tra ste d w ith th o se in S a a d a . In S a a d a , a w itn e ss n a m e d R ish tya g re e d to t es t i fyfort he governm entpur s uantt o a coope r at i on agr eement

. R i s ht yl at erw as caughton tape advi s i ng a fr i end t o gi ve fal se test i m onyi n excha nge fora r educe d s ent ence . O b v iou sly , this ne w inf o rm ati o n ca st do u b t on R ishty ’s t es t i m ony . I f he ha d been w i l l i ng t o advi s e a friend t o gi ve fal s e t es t i m onyi n excha nge fo r leni ency , w oul d he nott ake hi s ow n advi ce? N onethel es s , w e found thatthe new evidence o ffered i n S a a d a w as “only ” i m peach i ng , becau se t her e w as “no excul pat ory connec t i on” betw een the new evi dence and def

endant s ’ cr i m i nal act s . 212 F. 3d at216. E v e n th o u g h the n ew ev iden ce g rea tl yu n d erm ined R ishty ’s cr edi bi l i t y , w e fe l tt hatthe exc u lpat oryconnec t i on betw een R i s hty ’s test i m onyand hi s advi ce t o a fr i end i n an unr el at ed c a se w a s to o ten u o u s to re q u ire g ra n tin g a n e w trial.I ndeed, t her e maybe s om e t en sion be t w een Saa da and the 16 o th e r c ases. A reas on able pers on cou l d sayt hat the n ew ly di s cover ed evi dence i n Saada w as m o re dam agi ng t o t he g o v e rn m e n t’s c a se th a n th e n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e in D a v is and T agl i a. O f cour s e, underourpr act i ce Saa da s et s for t h t he contr ol l i ng l aw i n t hi s C our t

. T hi r d C i r cui tI nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedur e 9. 1. 22 W e d o n o t cite th e p re c e d in g e x a m p les in a n a ttem p t to d e f i n e t h e e x a c t“ e x c u l p a t o r yc o n n e c t i o n ” r e q u i r e d

. We 16 s i m pl yar e emphas i zi ng t he ques t i on to b e asked: i s t her e a s t r ong excul pat or yconnec t i on betw een the new l ydi s cover ed e v id e n c e a n d th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n ted a t trial o r d o e s th e n e w ly di s co ver ed evi dence , though noti n i t s el f exc ul pat ory , t hr ow sev ere d o u b t o n the truth fu lnes s o f th e c ri ti ca l i n cu lpato ry e v id e n c e th a t h a d b e e n in tro d u c e d a t th e trial. If th e a n s w e r is aff i r m at i ve, t hen a d ef

endantm aybe ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al even though he r el i es o n ev i dence t hatcoul d be cl as s i fi ed as “i m peac hm entevi dence

. ” I f the ans w eri s negat i ve, then the d e f e n d a n t is re ly in g o n m e re im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e a n d w ill notbe ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al o n i t s bas i s . D et erm i ni ng t he s t r ength and i m por t ance of the exc ul pat o ry connect i on orthe sig n if ica n c e o f th e n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e w ith re sp e c t to t he credibi l i t yof cri t i cal evidence g i ven atthe trial i s a di ffi cul tt as k t hati s l efti n t he fi r s t i ns t ance t o t he di s cr et i on of th e d is tr ic t c o u rt

. I n cons i der i ng S aa d a w e obs erve thatw e coul d not h av e int ended t o hol d t hatevi dence germ ane onl yfor i m peac hm entpurp os es nevercoul d be the bas i s forgr ant i ng aW e not e t hat t he governm enti n eff ectacknow l edges thatour 17 vi ew of S aa da i s corr ectbeca us e i n i t s br i ef i tr eci t es that “[w ] hi l e thi s C our thas notaddr es s ed thi s ex p res s i s s ue, other ci r cuit cour t s have r ecogni zed thatnew l ydi s cover ed i m peac hm entevi dence m ayw arr anta new t r i al i n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” A ppel l ee’ s br

. at43 n. 22. I n poi nt of fac t t he j ur y neverw oul d heart hatt he evi dence t hat 18 t h e e r s a t z wi t n e s s h a d b e e n i n p r i s o n a tth e t i me o f th e c r i me b e c a u s e o n c e th e g o v e rn m e n t lea rn e d th a t h e h a d b e e n th e re it w oul d notcal l on hi m t o t es t i fy at a re t r i al

. For t hat veryr eas on i t i s fai r t o s ay t hat , dependi ng on w hatthe otherevi dence w as o f th e de fe n d an t’ s g u il t, that the ev iden ce o f th e w itn ess’s in c a rc e ra tio n , th o u g h n o t in tro d u c e d a t a re trial, p ro b a b lyw o u ld p r o d u c e a n a c q u i t t a l a tth a tt r i a l a s i tw o u l d e l i m i n a t e th e e ye w itn e ss tes tim o n yo f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt

. 23 new t r i al

. I n t hi s r egar d, w e pos i tt he h yp o the t i cal of a

17 defendantdi s cover i ng aft era tr i al thatthe s ol e ey e w i t nes s at t h e t r i a l wh o t e s t i f

i e d t ha tth e d e f

e n d a n tc o mmi t t e d th e c r i me w as bey ond anydoubti n pr i s on m il es fro m the pl ace of the cr i m e att he t i m e of i t s comm i s sion

. W e thi nk that 18 dependi ng on w hatot herevi dence had bee n i n tr oduced a t tr ia l, it w o u ld b e re a so n a b le to h o ld th a t R u le 3 3 w o u ld author i ze a t r i al cour tt o gr anta new tr i al i n t hats i tuat i on even t hough t he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence i n no w ays uppor t ed t he def endant ’ s cl ai m o f bei ng i nnocentand thus ther e w as noI n t hi s opi ni on, w e have di s t i ngui s hed mer e i m peac hm ent 19 evi dence fr om evi dence s uppor t i ng t he gr antof a ne w t r i al us i ng a tw o- par tques t i on: i s t her e an e xcul pat oryconnec t i on betw een t he new evi dence and t he char ge agai ns t t he defenda ntordoes t he new evi dence des t r oycr i t i cal tr i al evi dence ? W e i ncl ude t hi s hypot het i cal t o expl ai n t he sec ond hal f of t hat ques t i on. T he n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e in th e h yp o th e tica l, de v a sta tin g a s it w oul d be, w oul d nothave a n “exc ul pat oryconnec t i o n ” to t he char ge agai ns tt he def

endantand w oul d nots uppor tan i nfer ence t hatt he defenda nt w as not gui l ty of the cha r ge aga i ns thi m . See Saada, 212 F. 3d at216. Y et , cl ear ly , t he i nt er es tof j us t i ce su g g est s th a t a n ew tr ial sh o u ld b e g ran ted. O f c o u rse, w e a re noti m pl y i ng t hati n ourhypothet i cal th e co u rtw oul d be c o m p e lled to g ra n t a n e w trial a n d w o u ld a b u se its d isc re tio n if i tdi d notdo s o. I n t hi s r egar d , w e p oi ntoutthatther e mi ght have be en evi dence other than ey e w i t nes s evi dence of the defe ndant ’ s gui l tj us t i fy i ng the convi ct i on. 24 excul pat or yconnec t i on betw een the evi dence and the fa ct s at trial. 19

3

. T h e N e w E v id e n c e O f f e r e d in T h is C a se Is M e re ly I m peac hi ng In th e D istri ct C o u rt , ap p ell an ts argu ed that the ju ry nev er w ou l d h ave b el i eved A y al a i f i t h a d k n o w n h e w as a convi ct ed chi l d r api s t

. See M i l l s v. E s t el l e, 552 F. 2d 119, 120 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 7 ) (c o n v ictio n s s h o w th a t th e w itn e ss is u n lik e ly t o have t he norm al w i t nes s ’ s r es pectforthe nec es s i t yofA ppel l ant s acknow l edged a tor al arg um entthatthe foc us of 20 t hei rar gum enth as cha nged s om ew hatas m or e fa ct s have devel oped. N ow t heyfocus l es s on A y al a’ s bad cha r act er( as s how n byhi s hei nous act s ) and more on hi s di r ect h ist oryof l y i ng t o t he governm ent

. H ow ever , appel l ant s di d ci t e Li pow s ki befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , s o t heyr ai s ed thei rar gum ent su f f icie n tlyto p re se rv e it so th a t w e c a n a d d re ss it. 25 gi vi ng t rut hful t es t i m o n y beca us e of hi s obvi ous di s r es pectof th e law ). A p p e llan ts’ a r g u m e n t m a d e it cle a r th a t th e ir n e w ly di s cover ed evi dence w as m er e i m peac hm ent evi dence and th u s , b yd e f

in itio n , it is n o t a s u f

f ic ie n t b a s is f

o r a n e w tr ia l. In th e ir a p p e llate b ri e f s a n d a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, appel l ant s w i s el yat t empt t o focus on t he nega t i ve ef fec tt hat t he new evi dence has on A y ala’s cr edi bi l i t yand, ther efor e, on h is c ritica l tes tim o n y . A p p e llan ts n o w a rg u e th a t A y a la 20 re p e a tedl yl i ed to the g ov ernm ent w hil e act i ng as a c o n f id e n tial in f

o rm a n t b e c a u se h e re p e a ted lyb u t f a ls e ly p led g e d n o t to c o m m it an yc rim e s . In a p p e llan ts’ v iew , this cas e i s s i m i l art o T agl i a, w her e a w it n es s w as s how n t o be a s e r i a l l i a rw h e n t e s t i f

yi n g i n a c e r t a i n c a p a c i t y. N ot w i t hs t andi ng appel l ant s ’ ar gum en t s , w e fi nd t hat c ritica l ev id e n c e h a s n o t b e e n so se v e re lyw e a k e n e d a s to j us t i fygr a nt i ng a ne w t r i a l

. A y a l a ha s t e s t i fi e d a s a c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r ma n ti n t h r e e o t h e rc a s e s . I f i t wa s s h o wn t hathe comm i t t ed bl at antperj u ry in t hes e othercas es then t here m igh t be r eas on t o doubthi s t es t i m onyi n t hi s cas e. I ns t ead, appe ll ant s s i m pl yhave s how n thatA y al a comm i t t ed c r i me s whi l e wor k i n g f o r t h e g o v e r n me n t , s o me t hi ng he26 pr om i s ed nott o do. T h is is t oo narr ow a bas i s forgr ant i ng a new tr i al beca us e a pe r s on s i gni ng a governm entagr eement an d t hen vi ol at i ng i t s t erm s has engage d i n a cour s e of conductw hol l ydi ffe r entfr om that of a per s on fabr i cat i ng tes tim o n y . A sh o w in g th a t A y a la v io late d th e ter m s o f h is em p loym en t i s n o t a su ff ici en t bas is to s u g g e st th at his en ti re w o rk a s a c o n fid en ti al i n fo rm an t w as a sh am . A y ala’s t r eatm entof a y oung gi r l i n vi ol at i on of hi s t erm s of e m p lo ym e n t, up se tti n g a s it m a yb e , h a s n o th in g to d o w ith t he conve r s at i ons t hat o cc urr ed i ns i de A ruba C heck Cashi ng. S e e Q u iles , 2 0 0 9 W L 4 6 6 2 8 3 , at * 5 (“ [ T ] h e c rim e s w ith w h ich A y a la is c h a rg e d h a v e a b s o lu telyn o re latio n to h is ro le i n the i nv est i gati on or tri al of d efen dan t s. ”). T his case i n v o l v e s e v i d e n c e d i f

f e r e n tf r o m t h e t yp e o f

e v i d e n c e we di s cus s ed above r egar di ng t he i m pr i s oned w i t n es s forthe e v id e n c e a t issu e h e re sim p lyd o e s n o t es tab lish th a t A y a la nece s s ar i l yw as unt ruthful atthe tr i al i n t hi s cas e.

4. C oncl us i on on t he R ul e 33 I s s ue A p pell ants are notenti t l ed to a new t ri al m erely beca us e the pr i nci pal w i tnes s adver s e t o them has turned out to b e a vi l e per s on. A pr act i ce s uppor t i ng the gr ant i ng of a new t r i al w hen s uch a pos t

- t r i al s how i ng i s m ad e w o u l d not be w or kabl e. H o w bad w oul d t he w i t nes s ’ s unr el at ed conduc t h a v e to b e b e f

o re a n e w trial s h o u ld b e g ra n ted ? W h a t if A y al a had b ee n steal i ng car s i ns t ead of r api ng chi l dr en? For t hi s r eas on, ap p el l ant s her e and de fenda nt s gener al l yar e not en ti tl ed t o a new t r i al s ol el yon the bas i s of new l ydi s cover ed i m peac hm entevi den ce . H ow ever , i f ther e i s a s t r ong27 excu lpa t or yconnec t i on betw een the new l ydi s cover ed im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e a n d th e c h a rg e a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n t, ori f the new evi dence totall yunderm i nes cr i t i cal evi dence of t he def endant ’ s gui l t , then the new l ydi s cover ed i m peachm ent evi dence can s erve as the bas i s fo r a new tr i al

. B ut i m peac hm entevi dence w hich l acks thi s connec t i on — ev iden ce that is m ere lyim p ea ch ing w ith o u t an e x cu lpato ry connec t i on w i t h r es pectto the char ge aga i ns tthe def endantor w i t houtunderm i ni n g cr i t i cal i ncul pat oryevi dence — w i l l not suffice. W hetherou r s t and ard of revi ew i s de no vo or abuse of di s cr et i on, t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e i s m er el yi m peac hi ng. T herefore, t he D i stri ct C ou rt corr ect l y den ied app el l ants ’ m o tio n f o r a n e w trial.

B . T h e r e W a s S u ffic ien t E v id e n c e to C o n v ict G lo r ia Q ui l es Wh e n e v a l u a t i n g a c h a l l e n g e t o a j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t , we appl ya parti cul ar l ydefe r ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew . U ni t ed St at es v. D ent , 1 4 9 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1998)

. W e do not r e - w e i gh t he e vi de nc e ora s s e s s t he c r e di bi l i t yof w i t ness es. Id. (cit in g U n it ed S tat es v . V o igt, 8 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 8 0 (3d C ir

. 19 96 ))

. Inst ead, w e view t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favorab l e t o t he governm entbefor e dec i di ng w hetherany r at i onal t r i ero f fa ct coul d have f ound the pr es ence of the e ss e n ti a l ele m e n ts o f

th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. I d. ( ci t i ng U n it ed St at es v. T hom as , 114 F. 3d 403, 405 ( 3d C i r . 1997) )

. I n t hi s cas e, our standar d of r evi ew r equi r es t hat w e view A y al a as a credi ble w i t ness.28 I nasm uch as the j uryacqui t t ed G l or i a Q ui l es on t he co n s p i r a c y c h a r g e ( Cou n t One ) we e x a mi n e e v i d e n c e of her per s onal i nvol vementi n ev ery tr ans act i on of w hi ch s he w as c o n v icte d . T h e e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t A y a la s p o k e w ith G lo ria Qu i l e s o n Oc t o b e r1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , a n d o n De c e mb e r6 , 2 0 0 6

. On b o th o c c a sio n s , A ya la to ld G lo ria Q u iles th a t h e w a s th e re to laun d er drug m oney . Forr eas ons t hatw e do notknow t he j ur ydi d notconvi ctG l ori a Q ui l es w i t h r es pectt o t he cha r ges ari si ng from t he O c to b e r conve rs at i on , bu ti tnev ertheles s convi ct ed herof the s ix ac ts of m oneyl aunder i ng occurr i ng on oraft erD ece m ber6, 2006 ( C ount s T w el ve thr ough S even t een). A ft er D ecem ber 6, G l ori a kn ew A y a la’ s purpose a n d th e re f

o re th e a ss ista n c e sh e p ro v id e d w a s s u f f icie n t to convi ctherof aidi ng and abe t t i ng m oneyl aunder i ng. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fr orup, 963 F. 2d 41 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( aff i r m i ng co n v ic t i on of fr i end w ho arr anged drug deal , even though frien d w as n eith er b u y er n o r sell er). T he audi o t apes confi r m t hat G l or i a Q ui l es w as p r es ent fo r tran sac ti o n s w ith A y a la o n D ec em b er 6 (C o u n t T w elve ), D ec em b er 7 (C o u n t T h irteen ), D ec e m b e r 8 (C o u n t Fo u rt ee n ), J anuary11 ( C ountSixtee n) , and J anuary12 ( C ount Sevent een)

. A l t hough heri nt er act i on w i t h A y al a mayhave been mi ni m al on s om e o f the s e day s , s he knew A y al a w as l aun deri ng drug m on eyand , byprocessing his transact i on s, s he w as hel pi ng t he ventur e t o s ucc ee d and w as part i ci pat i ng in it

. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . M o ses, 2 2 0 F .2 d 1 6 6 , 1 6 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 5 5 ) ( “ I n o r d e r to a id a n d a b e t an o th e r to c o m m it a c rim e it is n e c e ss a ryth a t a d e f e n d a n t in so m e so rt a ss o c iate h im se lf w i t h t he ventur e, t hathe part i cipat e i n i tas i n s om ethi ng t hat h e w is h e s to b rin g a b o u t, th a t h e se e k b yh is a c tio n to m a k e it s uc c e e d. ” ) ( qu ot i ng N y e & N i s s e n v . U ni t e d St a t es, 33 6 U. S.Ju d g e S m ith b e liev e s th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su f f icie n t to 21 s uppor tt he convi ct i on of G l or i a Q ui l es on C o u nt15, and he t h e r e f o r e d i s s e n t s f

r o m th i s p o r t i o n o f

th e o p i n i o n o n l y. 29 6 1 3 , 6 1 9 , 6 9 S .C t. 7 6 6 , 7 6 9 -7 0 (1 9 4 9 )) (in ter n a l q u o te o m itte d ). T he gov ernm ent ackn ow l edg es t hat on t w o of th ese occa s i ons G l or i a Q ui l es told A y al a thathe had t o r eturn l at er if h e w a n ted to c o m p lete h is tra n sa c tio n . W h e n A y a la d id r etur n, s om eone e l s e compl et ed the m o n eyl aunder i ng tra n sa c tio n . H o w e v e r, b e c a u se G lo ria Q u iles k n e w th a t A y a la w as th ere to lau n d er m o n ey , h er a d m o n it ion to A y ala to re turn l at erw as s uffi ci entt o su p p or therconvi ct i on forai di ng and abett i ng. I n s hor t , sh e k n ew w hatA y al a w as doi ng and s o u g h t b y h e r a c tio n s to h e lp h im s u c c e e d

. O n th o s e d a ys w hen G l or i a Q ui l es per form ed the tr ans act i ons her s el f, s he s tru c tu re d th e m to a v o id m o n e yla u n d e ri n g re q u ir e m e n ts

. W it h r es pectt o the tr ans act i on on J anuary10 ( C ount Fi ft een) t he evi dence s ugges t ed thatG l or i a Q ui le s w as at A ruba C heck Cashi ng, butdi d noti nt er actw i th A y al a that day

. H ow ever , A y al a w as u nabl e t o compl et e the tr ans act i on t hatdayand had t o r eturn t he nextday

. W hen A y al a r eturned, G l ori a Q ui l es s poke t o hi m aboutthe moneyhe had l eftthe pr evi ous day

. T hi s conductw as s uffi ci ent to sh o w thats he h a d in v o lv e d h e rse lf

in th e Ja n u a r y 1 0 tra n sa c tio n a f ter A y a la depart ed. 21 W e see no bas i s t o concl ude thata r eas onabl e j ur or cou l d n ot have v oted t o co nv i ctG l ori a Q uil es on the fa c ts30 present ed at tri al

. V i e w in g t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o rab le t o the g o v ern m en t, w e c an n o t ov erturn the ju ry ’s v e rd ict. T h u s, w e w ill a f f irm G lo ria Q u iles ’s c o n v ic tio n in f u ll.

C . G e r m a n Q u iles ’s S e n te n c e W a s R e a so n a b le G erm an Q ui l es chal l enges t he pr ocedur e us ed t o arr i ve athi s s ent ence . H e ar gues thatthe C our tfai l ed t o cons i der evi dence s ugges t i ng that a l ow er s ent ence w oul d have b een appr opr i at e and f

ai l ed t o justi fyt he s ent ence t hati ti m pos ed. S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (c ) ( c o u r t sh o u ld sta te th e re a so n s f o r its im p o s itio n o f a p arti cu lar sen tenc e). B u t th e re co rd d em o n str ates tha t th e C o u rtw as in v o lv e d clos elyat ev ery s t age of t he tr i al and s ent enci ng. T he C our thear d s ent enci ng a rg u m e n ts f

ro m G e rm a n Q u iles a n d f ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t. T he C our tt h en expl ai ned ats om e l ength w hyG erm an Q ui l es w a s b e in g s e n te n c e d t o 6 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. A s ent enci ng cour tneed notanal y ze e x p li ci t l yeveryar gum ent t hata def

endantput s forw ar d. S ee R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 551 U

. S

. 338, 356, 127 S. C t

. 2456, 2468 ( 2007) ( s ent enci ng cour t ’ s t e r s e s t a t e me n to f r e a s o n s was s u f

f i c i e n te x p l a n a t i on o f s e n te n c e ). T h e C o u rt c lea rlyp e rf o rm e d its d u ties in th is cas e, and di d notm ake a pr ocedur al err ori n doi ng s o. N ex t, G erm an Q u il es a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt f a iled to e x p la in w h yh e w a s s e n ten c e d to p riso n w h ile h isGe r ma n Qu i l e s d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e t h e a mo u n to f t h e f i n e . Of 22 cour s e, he does n o t argue t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have im p o sed lon g er se n tenc es o n h is w ife a n d d au g h ter. 31 w i fe a nd daught erw er e not

. H e ar gues t hatt he C our tw as 22 re q u ir e d to a d d re s s th is is s u e e x p l ic itly u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) ( 6)

. B utt hats t atut e does notcont ai n s uch an “expl i ci t ” expl anat i on r equi r ement , and w e al r eadyhave s t at ed thatt he C our ts u ff i ci ent l yexpl ai ned the s ent ence that w as i m pos ed. A ddi t i onal l y , a def endantdoes nothave a r i ght t o b e sent ence d equal l yw i t h hi s co- defe ndant s . See U ni t ed S tat es v . P ark er, 46 2 F

. 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 7

– 7 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). Sent enci ng i s an i ndi vi dual m at t er . Fi nal l y , t he r ecor d m akes cl eart hatt he C our ts aw G erm an Q ui l es as the r i ngl eade rof t he cr i m i nal act i vi t y . H e w as t he pr es i dentof A ruba, I nc. and w as i n ch arge of it s com pli ance w i t h the app l ica b le reg u lat ion s w ith res p e c t to m o n eylaun d ering

. T h e C o u rt i ncr eas ed hi s offe ns e l evel byt w o beca us e the C our tfound t hathe w as t he l eade r , m anager, or s upervi s orof the cr i m i nal act i vi t yati s s ue. Supp. A pp. 1582. D ur i ng s ent en cing, t he C our tas ked G erm an Q ui l es “w hydi d y ou i nvol ve y ourw i fe and daught er ?” Supp. A pp. 1618. W e s ee no e r r orher e. G erm an Q ui l es al s o chal l enges hi s s ent ence as subst anti velyexcessi ve. W hen a dis t ri ctcou rti m po ses a se n ten c e a f

ter a p ro c e d u ra llyso u n d re v iew , a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls w i l l cons i dert he s ent ence i m pos ed under an abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d. G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 552 U

. S. 38, 51, 128 S. C t

. 586, 597 ( 2007)

. W e c an n o t sayt hatG erm an Q ui l es ’ s b el ow - gui del i ne s ent ence w as bey ond t he di s cr et i on of the D i s t r i ctC our ther e.32 V. CO NC L US I ON W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d whe t h e rn e wl yd i s c o v e r ed im p ea ch m en t evid en ce , stan d ing alon e, can b e the b asis fo r a new cr i m i nal t r i al , as s um i ng al l the other req ui r ement s of R u l e 33 are m et

. W e hav e con cl ud ed that i t can be in situ a tio n s in w h ich th e e v id e n c e is m o re th a n m e re ly im p e a c h in g o r in w h ich it se v e re lyu n d e rm in e s th e c re d ib ili ty of a c ruci al governm entw i t ness w hos e t es t i m onyw as es s ent i al t o t he govern m en t ’ s cas e. T hus , t her e mustbe an excul pat or yconnec t i on betw een the new i m peac hm ent evi dence and the w i t ness’ s t es t i m onyattr i al orthe i m peac hm ent evi dence m us t under m i ne cr i t i cal tr ia l test im o n y . W h en tho se c o n n ec ti o n s are m issi n g , as th eyare h e re , o r th e im p e a c h m e n t e v id e n c e is le ss sig n if ica n t, as it i s her e, t he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence i s m er el yi m peac hi ng a n d a n e w trial s h o u ld n o t b e g ra n ted o n it s b a s is . F o r th is r eas o n , we wi l l a f

f i r m th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t ’ s o r d e r e n t e r e d on F eb ru ary2 5 , 2 0 0 9 , d en y ing a n ew tr ial

. W e a lso w il l aff irm t he or derent er ed on A ugus t 1 4, 2008, deny i ng appel l ant G l or i a Q ui l es ’ s m ot i on for a new t r i al

. V i ew i ng t h e e v i dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfav o rabl e t o t he governm ent , ther e w as suffi ci entevi dence t o convi cther

. M or eover , w e w i l l af firm th e se n ten c e o f

G e rm a n Q u iles . T h e C o u rt c o n d u c ted a f u ll sent enci ng hear i ng and then s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai ned w hyi tw as i m pos i ng a be l o w- g u i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e o f 6 0 mon t hs i m pr i s onm ent

. T hus, w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm ent s of convi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed i n the D i s t r i ctC our ton F e b ru a ry2 7 , 2 0 0 9 , in N o . 0 9

- 1 6 6 7 , a n d o n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 9 , in N o. 09- 1686.