FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 3, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15091 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 0 4 4 0 - CR- T- 2 4 - M SS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S H E N A R D D E A N D R E D U M A S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 3, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S henard D ea nd re D um as appeal s the deni al of hi s m ot i on for anew tri al2

base d o n n ew l y di sc ov er ed evi dence pursuantt o F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P r o c e d u r e 3 3 . W e a f f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e d e r a l g r a n d ju ry in d ic te d D u m a s in 2 0 0 2 f o r( 1 ) b e in g a f

e lo n in pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m i n a nd a f

f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U .S .C . 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) , a n d ( 2 ) b e in g a f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a r m in and affe ct i ng i nt er st at e c om m er ce i n v i ol at i on of 92 2(g)(1) and 92 4(e) (1). D um as w a s c ha r ge d w i th know i ngl y pos s e s s i ng a . 40 c a l i be rW a l the rf i r e a r m on A ugus t4, 20 02 , and o n A ug ust18 , 20 02 , i n L akel and, F l ori da. H e pre vi ou sl y had been c o n v ic te d f

o rf o u rs e p a r a te c r im e s , e a c h p u n is h ab le b y m o r e th a n a y e a rin p r is o n . O n S e p te m b e r8 , 2 0 0 5 , a ju ry f o u n d D u m a s to b e g u ilty o f b o th c r im e s . D u m as m o v ed fo r a co n t i n u an ce o f h i s sen t en ci n g t o h av e a w i tn ess t est i fy, because of al ett erthatD um as al l egedl y r ec ei ved aft erhi s c on vi ct i on . T he l ett er , pu rport edl y f

rom the vi ct i m of the A ug ust4, 20 02 , i nci dent , Jose ph M cC re e, st at es tha tD um a s w a s nothi s a tt a c ke r . A thi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng on D e c e m be r15, 2005, D um a s s t a t e d tha the r e c e i ve d the l e tt e ron N ove m be r20, 2002, buttha the di d not in f o r m h is a tto rn e y u n til D e c e m b e r8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e p r o s e c u to re x p la in e d th a t, al tho ug h M cC re e di d n ott es t i fy attri al , he t ol d the po l i ce thatD um as had att ac ked3

h im , a n d h e te s tif

ie d in th e g r a n d ju ry p r o c e e d in g s . T h e p r o s e c u to rc a lle d S p e c ia l A g e n t W a lte rL a n ie ro f th e B u r e a u o f

A lc o h o l, T oba c c o, a nd F i r e a r m s ( “ A T F ” ) t o t e s t i f y aboutthe i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o the s hoot i ngs . H e t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d i nt e rvi e w e d M c C r e e , a l ong w i th the L a ke l a nd P ol i c e , a nd tha the a nd the pr os e c ut i on c a l l e d M c C r e e t o appe a rbe f or e the gr a nd j ury. L ani ert es t i fi ed thatatno po i ntdi d M cC re e s ay thatD um as w as no ti nv ol ved i n the shoo t i ng . A dd i t i on al l y, L ani ert es t i fi ed thatM cC re e pi cked D um as ou tof a ph ot og raph l i neup . H e t es t i fi ed thathe al so i nt ervi ew ed other w i tness es and that al l of them sa i d thatD um as w as i nv ol ved. T he j ud ge grant ed the m ot i on for a c o n tin u a n c e o f

s e n te n c in g . W he n the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng r e s um e d on J a nua ry 30, 2006, the e nve l ope f or the l e tt e ra l l e ge dl y abs ol vi ng D um a s w a s pr oduc e d. I tw a s da t e d D e c e m be r23, 2 0 0 5 , w h ic h w a s a f

te rth e p r e v io u s s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , a n d it w a s a d d r e s s e d to F e l e i c i a H ol m e s i ns t e a d of D um a s . B e c a us e of

the c onf l i c t i ng t e s t i m ony , the j udge o r d e r e d th a t th e v ic tim , M c C r e e , b e b r o u g h t to te s tif y . A tthe f i na l s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng i n M a r c h 2006, the j udge a ddr e s s e d the i ss ues r ai se d b y D um as as t o the val i di ty of M cC re e’ s pri or i nt ervi ew s. M cC re e t e s t i f i e d tha the di d notknow w ho a s s a ul t e d hi m on A ugus t4, 2002; he di d not kn ow D um as ; and D um as w as no ti nv ol ved i n the as saul t . A l tho ug h M cC re e4

c o n f ir m e d th e s ig n a tu r e o n th e p h o to g r ap h lin e u p in w h ic h h e id e n tif ie d D u m a s to the L akel and P ol i ce , he t es t i fi ed thathe fe l tpres sure d t o cho ose D um as and that the offi ce r i dent i fi ed D um as as the m an w ho had sho tM cC re e. M cC re e then read the tra nscr i ptof hi s i nt ervi ew w i th the L akel and P ol i ce i n w hi ch he i dent i fi ed D u m a s a s th e h o ld e ro f

th e g u n . H e a ls o r e a d h is te s tim o n y to th e g r a n d ju ry in w hi ch he sa i d thathe go ta c l ea r l oo k athi s a tt ac ker, w ho w as D um as . H e s t at ed tha the ha d s o t e s t i f

i e d t o the gr a nd j ury be c a us e he ha d w a nt e d the or de a l t o be ove ra nd be c a us e he w a s c oe r c e d by the of f i c e r s . M c C r e e a dm i tt e d t o l y i ng t o the g r a n d ju ry a n d ly in g to th e L a k e la n d P o lic e . T h e p r o s e c u t o rs h o we d Mc C r e e th e l e tt e r , a n d h e a d m i tt e d wr i t i n g i t . He a l s o a dm i tt e d t e l l i ng both de f e ns e c ouns e l a nd the A T F tha the di d notw r i t e i t , but he st at ed thathe w as l yi ng atthe t i m e. M cC re e t es t i fi ed thathe has s ever al di ff er enthand w ri t i ng s, bu the i dent i fi ed the hand w ri tt en l ett eras hi s. H e f urther t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d m a i l e d the l e tt e ri n N ove m be r , buttha tthe e nve l ope w a s not the on e thathe had sent . H e i dent i fi ed the hand w ri t i ng on the envel op e a s hi s, as w el l as the w ri t i ng on the l ett er , even tho ug h they w er e di ff er ent . T he j ud ge then a s ke d M c C r e e i f

he kne w F e l e i c i a H ol m e s , a nd M c C r e e s a i d tha the di d notknow w ho she w as , bu tthathe tho ug htshe w as D um as ’ s m other. T he j ud ge di sm i ss ed M c C r e e f

r om the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ng a nd de ni e d D um a s ’ s m ot i on t o c ont i nueThe motion was filed within three year s of the verdict. Fe d. R. Crim. P . 33(b)( 1). 1 5 se nt enci ng i n o rdert o fi l e am ot i on for new tri al , because the j ud ge det erm i ned that D u m a s w a s n o t te llin g th e tru th . O n M a r c h 3 , 2 0 0 6 , th e ju d g e s e n te n c e d D u m a s to 3 0 0 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t, c o n c u rr e n t a s to th e tw o c o u n ts a n d c o n s e c u tiv e to h is s ta te s e n te n c e , f

o llo w e d b y 6 0 m o n th s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . D u m a s tim e ly ap p e a le d b u t c h a lle n g e d o n ly h is s e n te n c e . W e a f f ir m e d h is se nt ence . O n M ar ch 13 , 20 07 , D um as ’ s c ou nsel fi l ed a m ot i on for anew tri al pu rs uantt o R ul e 33 and ar gu ed thatthe evi dence of M cC re e’ s r ec ant at i on w as new and n otavai l abl e unt i l af t ertri al , w hen M cC re e t es t i fi ed thathe had fal se l y a cc used D um as . D ef

ense coun se l further a rgued thatthe fa i l ure t o d i sc ov erthe evi dence w a s n o t a la c k o f

d u e d ilig e n c e b u t b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o in f o r m a tio n th a t w o u ld in d icate th at M cC re e w o u ld re ca n t h is sto ry . T h e d istrict j u d g e d en ied D u m as ’s m ot i on f orne w tr i a l . T he j udge e xpl a i ne d tha tD um a s ’ s ne w e vi de nc e w a s not b e lie v ab le , a n d , th e r e f

o r e , a ju ry lik e ly w o u ld n o t c r e d it h is te s tim o n y a n d a c q u it hi m ba s e d on i t . A ddi t i ona l l y , D um a s ha d w a i t e d ove ra y e a rt o f i l e hi s m ot i on a f t e rdi s c ove r i ng the ne w e vi de nc e . D um a s f i l e d a t i m e l y not i c e of

appe a l f r om 1 th e o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n f o ra n e w tr ia l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l, D u m a s a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e s h o u ld h a v e g r a n te d h isDuma s d e signate d o nly themotion

fo r n e w tri al in

hisno tic eof

a pp e al; there fo re , this i s 2 the sole issue pre sented on a ppeal f or our c onsideration. F ed. R. App. P. 3(c) (1)( B) .

6 m ot i on for anew tri al base d o n n ew l y di sc ov er ed evi dence. H e c on t ends that Mc C r e e ’ s t e s t i m o n y wa s n o tu n b e l i e v ab l e b e c a u s e i twa s c o n s i s t e n twi th h i s o wn t e s t i m ony tha the w a s notpr e s e nta tthe a tt a c k on M c C r e e . H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthe ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e w a s nota va i l abl e a tthe t i m e of hi s tr i a l i n m i d- 2005 because, pri or t o tri al , the on l y e vi dence i nd i ca t ed thatM cC re e w ou l d i dent i fy D u m a s a s th e a s s a ila n t, a n d h e h a d n o r e a s o n to s u s p e c t th a t M c C r e e w o u ld r e c a n t. D u m as m ain tain s th at h e e x er cise d d u e d il ig en ce in lear n in g ab o u t M cC re e’s r e c a nt a t i on, be c a us e he c oul d notha ve l e a rne d abouti tpr i ort o di s c ove ry of the not e . F ur the r m or e , the t e s t i m ony w a s m a t e r i a l t o the i s s ue of gui l tbe c a us e , i f

he w a s notpr e s e nta tthe a s s a ul ton M c C r e e , the n the r e w a s no e vi de nt i a ry ba s i s f or f i ndi ng hi m gui l ty of

pos s e s s i on of

the gun. T hi s t e s t i m ony w a s notc um ul a t i ve or m er el y i m peac hi ng because i texon er at ed D um as , and n o o ther s i m i l arevi dence w a s s ubm i tt e d. D um a s c ont e nds tha the pr obabl y w oul d ha ve be e n a c qui tt e d on the f i r s tc ounti f

M c C r e e ’ s t e s t i m ony ha d be e n pr e s e nt e d. H e f ur the ra r gue s tha the w oul d ha ve be e n a c qui tt e d on the othe rc ount , be c a us e M c C r e e w oul d ha ve i m p each ed b o th o f th e g o v ern m en t ’ s m ai n w i tn esses. 2 W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tj udge ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on f

orne w tr i a l f

orabus e of di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T oka r s , 95 F . 3d 1520, 1531 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . U pon a7

d e f e n d a n t’s R u le 3 3 m o tio n , a d is tr ic t ju d g e m a y “v a c a te a n y ju d g m e n t a n d g r a n t a n e w tr ia l if

th e in te r e s t o f

ju s tic e s o r e q u ir e s .” F e d . R . C r im . P . 3 3 ( a ) . T o m e r it a ne w tr i a l ba s e d on ne w l y di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e , a de f e nda ntm us ts how tha t : “ ( 1) the e v id e n c e w a s in f

a c t d is c o v e r e d a f

te rtr ia l; ( 2 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t e x e r c is e d d u e c a r e to di s c ove rthe e vi de nc e ; ( 3) the e vi de nc e i s notm e r e l y c um ul a t i ve ori m pe a c hi ng; (4) the evi dence w as m at er i al ; and (5) the evi dence w as of such a nature thata new tr i a l w oul d pr obabl y pr oduc e a di f f e r e ntr e s ul t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e , 68 F . 3d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . “T h e f a ilu r e to s a tis f

y a n y o n e o f

th e s e e le m e n ts is fa tal t o a m o ti o n fo r n ew trial. ” I d . at 1 2 7 4 . O u r c ircu it“h ig h ly d isfa v o r[ s]” m ot i on s f

or new tri al base d sol el y on n ew l y di sc ov er ed evi dence and grant s them

“ on l y w i th g re atcaut i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C am pa, 45 9 F . 3d 11 21 , 11 51 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( e n b a n c ) . I t is th e d e f e n d a n t’s b u r d e n to ju s tif y a m o tio n f

o rn e w tr ia l. I d . W he n a de f

e nda ntknow s abouta s our c e of e vi de nc e a nd doe s not i nve s t i ga t e i t , he doe s note xe r c i s e due di l i ge nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, 422 F . 3d 12 85 , 12 95 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). In T ho m pson , an af fi davi tsurf

ac ed that in d ic a te d th a t s o m e o f

th e w itn e s s e s a t tr ia l w e r e in v o lv e d in a c o n s p ir a c y to i nc r i m i na t e the de f

e nda nt . I d. a t1294. T he a f f i da vi tw a s f

r om a gi r l f

r i e nd of one o f th e w itn e s s e s , w h o w a s k n o w n to th e d e f e n d a n t a n d k n o w n to th e d e f e n d a n t to be i nvol ve d i n drug tr a de . I d. T he de f e nda nt , how e ve r , di d noti nt e r vi e w the8

af fi antbecause s he w as i n N orth C ar ol i na, and h e w as i n F l ori da; w e det erm i ned thatthe evi dence w as di sc ov er abl e throu gh the exerc i se of du e di l i gence. Id. at 1 2 9 5 . W e vi e w r e c a nt a t i ons “ w i th e xtr e m e s us pi c i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a nt i a go, 837 F . 2d 1545, 1550 ( 11th C i r . 1988) . I nc r e di bl e t e s t i m ony c a n be the ba s i s f or de ny i ng a m ot i on f

ora ne w tr i a l . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R e e d, 887 F . 3d 1398, 1404- 05 (11th C i r. 19 89 ) ( re cogn i zi ng thata w i tness ’ s unb el i evabl e t es t i m on y c an p r o v id e th e b a s is f

o rd e n y in g a m o tio n f

o rn e w tr ia l b e c a u s e th e o u tc o m e p r o b ab ly w oul d notbe di f

f e r e nt ) . I f the e vi de nc e i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o uphol d the ve r di c ti n l i ght of the new evi dence, then the ou t com e i s notl i kel y t o chang e a nd a m ot i on for new tri al shou l d b e deni ed. U ni t ed S t at es v. S t arre tt , 55 F . 3d 15 25 , 15 54 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( n o tin g th a t e v id e n c e th a t a g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s in te n d e d to p e r ju r e h im s e lf di d n otl ea d t o the concl usi on thatthe j ury w ou l d chang e thei r m i nd s bec ause there w as suff i ci entother e vi dence t o sup po rtthe verdi ct ). T he di s tr i c tj udge di d notabus e he rdi s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng D um a s ’ s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l . D um a s f a i l e d t o de m ons tr a t e tha the e xe r c i s e d due di l i ge nc e i n a tt e m pt i ng t o di s c ove rthe e vi de nc e , be c a us e M c C r e e w a s a va i l abl e t o be in te r v ie w e d p r io rto tr ia l, a n d h e w a s a v a ilab le to b e c a lle d a s a w itn e s s a t tr ia l. E ven i f the re ca nt at i on coul d b e vi ew ed as new l y di sc ov er ed evi dence unavai l abl eMcCree ’s testimony was implausible bec ause hetestified that he wrote the letter but 3 that he had lied when he previously said he did not write the letter. R9 at 40-41. Hetestified that th ee nv e lop esu

bmitte d into evide nc ewa s n ot t heon ethat c ontaine d th ele tter, but it wa s h is handwriting, and it wa s his address; the envelope wa s addre ssed to Fe leicia Holmes, whom McCreedid not know, and he wa s never able to say

what wa s in the envelope . I d. at 46-48. He testified that he had several different ha ndwriting s and admitted lying to the grand jury, the p o l i c e , th eA T F ag e nt s , an d d e f e n s ec o un s e lp re v i o u s ly. Id . at3 6 , 4 0 - 4 1 . A c c o rdi n g ly, McCree ’s testimony

did not make sense a

nd likely would not lead a jur

y to acquit Dumas. See L e e , 6 8 F .3 d at 12 74 (de terminingthat new evide nc ethat re sulte d f ro m a c ha ng ein s tor

y would likely not lead to a diff

erent result beca

use the witness would beimpeache d by his own inconsistences) . 9 throu gh the exerc i se of du e di l i gence, the m ot i on for new tri al prop er l y w as deni ed be c a us e M c C r e e ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s i nc r e di bl e a nd unl i ke l y t o ha ve c ha nge d the v e r d ic t, b e c a u s e o f

th e te s tim o n y o f

th e o th e rtw o w itn e s s e s w h o p a r tic ip a te d w ith 3 D u m a s in th e a tta c k o n M c C r e e . I I I . CONCL US I ON D u m a s h a s ap p e a le d th e d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n f

o ra n e w tr ia l b a s e d o n n e w ly di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e . A s w e ha ve e xpl a i ne d, D um a s f a i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n of ju s tif y in g h is m o tio n f

o ra n e w tr ia l. A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o t i o n f o ra n e w tr i a l i s AF F I R ME D.