# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 20 34

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ri ch ard Harri s B ear R

un ne r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Rap id Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 14 Fil ed : J an ua ry

15 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

A jury co nv ic te d Ri ch ard Harri s Bea r Ru nn er of a s sa ul t wit h a da ng ero us weap on an d as sa ul t res ul ti ng in se rio us bo di ly in jury, in vi ol at i o n o f 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 3( a)(3 ) an d 11 3( a)(6 ). At th e tri al , th ere was su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce th at Bea r Ru nn er be at th e vi ct im us in g a lo ng ob ject wit h so m e sh arp th in g on th e en d (li ke a na il ). Si x

m o n t h s aft er tri al —t he m or ni ng of th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng —Be ar Ru nn er’s fat he rga ve th e co ur t a le tt er cl ai m in g Bea r Ru nn er was in no cen t. The le tt er was si gn ed by

A.H. (a m in or ), who cl ai m ed th at th e vi ct im was no t ass au lt ed , bu t act ua ll y fel l in to

a ba rb ed -wir e f

e n c e

. S he al so cl ai m ed th at de fen se co un se l refu se d to cal l he r to
te st ify at tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t co nt in ue d th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , rel ie ve d Bea r 1
R u nn er’s co un se l du e to a po ss ib le co nf li ct of in te res t, an d la te r ap po in t e d n e w

co un se l. Bea r Ru nn er m ov ed fo r a n e w t ria l ba se d on ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce. Afte r two ev i d e n ti ary he ari ng s, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed a ne w tri al

. Bea r Ru nn er ap pe al s. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , th is co ur t af fir m s.

“ W e rev ie w f

o r c le ar ab us e of di sc ret io n th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of [d efen da nt ’s] m ot io n fo r a n e w t ria l ba se d on ne wly d is co ve red ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Bell , 76 1 F.3 d 90 0, 91 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ Upo n th e de fen da nt ’s m ot io n, th e

co ur t m ay va cat e an y jud gm en t an d gr an t a n e w t r i a l i f th e in te res t of jus ti ce so req ui res .” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 33 (a). “ To pr ev ai l on su ch a m ot io n, th e de fen da nt m us t
pr ov e th a t ( 1 ) t h e ev id en ce was un kn own or un av ai la bl e at th e ti m e of tri al , ( 2) th e de fen da nt di d no t la ck di li ge nc e in at te m pt in g to un co ve r it , (3 ) th e n e w l y f o u nd

ev id en ce is m at eri al , an d (4 ) th e ev id en ce is li ke ly t o pr od uc e an acq ui tt al if a ne w tri al is gra nt ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Her bs t , 66 6 F .3d 50 4, 5 12 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t e r r in de nyin g a ne w t ria l. The au th or of th e le tt er, A.H., was Bea r Ru nn er’s co us in

. Her te st im on y at th e he ari ng , as t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d, “ di ffer ed in a nu mber of m at eri al res pe ct s fro m he r le tt er” an d th e tri al
te st im on y

. A.H.’ s le tt er sa id th at bo th sh e an d F.B. wit ne ss ed th e in ci de nt , bu t A.H. la te r ad m it te d th at F.B. was no t pr es en t (F.B. di d no t ap pe ar in co ur t ev en th ou gh twi ce su bp oe na ed , an d th e pa rti es st ip ul at ed th at F.B. wou ld no t co rro bo rat e A.H.’ s

acco un t). Fu rth er, Dr. Don a l d H a b b e , a pa th ol og is t who te st ifi ed th at th e vi ct im ’s in juri es were co ns is te nt wit h in juri es fro m ba rb ed wire , “ di d no t refu te

. . . te st im on y

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of So ut h Dak ot a.
-2

-an d co nc lu si on s th at th e in juri es were al so co ns is te nt wit h an ob ject wit h so m et hi ng li ke a na il on th e en d of it .” The di st ric t co ur t fo u n d A

. H .’ s te st im on y “ pr es en te d

se rio us cred ib il it y co nc ern s” an d “ se rio us rel ia bi li ty i ss ue s.” The co ur t co nc lu de d th at A.H.’ s te st im on y was un li ke ly to pr od uc e an acq ui tt al at a ne w tri al in li gh t of th e

“ su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

. . . p res en te d a t t ria l to su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic ts of gu il ty.” Si nc e “ [n ]ewly di sc ov ered ev id en c e t h a t i s no t cred ib le is no t li ke ly to res ul t in
acq ui tt al in a se co nd tri al , . . . lac k o f cred ib il it y is su ffi ci en t g ro un ds for de nyin g a

m ot io n fo r ne w tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Vas qu ez -Ga rc ia , 34 0 F.3 d 63 2, 64 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-