United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2034

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Richard Harris Bear Runner

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City

____________

 Submitted: November 14, 2014

 Filed: January 15, 2015

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM. 

A jury convicted Richard Harris Bear Runner of assault with a dangerous

weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§

113(a)(3) and 113(a)(6). At the trial, there wassubstantial evidence that Bear Runner

beat the victim using a long object with some sharp thing on the end (like a nail). Six

months after trial—the morning of the original sentencing—Bear Runner’s father
gave the court a letter claiming Bear Runner was innocent. The letter was signed by

A.H. (a minor), who claimed that the victim was not assaulted, but actually fell into

a barbed-wire fence. She also claimed that defense counsel refused to call her to

testify at trial. The district court continued the sentencing hearing, relieved Bear

1

Runner’s counsel due to a possible conflict of interest, and later appointed new

counsel. Bear Runner moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. 

After two evidentiary hearings, the district court denied a new trial. Bear Runner

appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

“We review for clear abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of

[defendant’s] motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.” United

States v. Bell, 761 F.3d 900, 911 (8th Cir. 2014). “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). “To prevail on such a motion, the defendant must

prove that (1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable at the time of trial, (2) the

defendant did not lack diligence in attempting to uncover it, (3) the newly found

evidence is material, and (4) the evidence is likely to produce an acquittal if a new

trial is granted.” United States v. Herbst, 666 F.3d 504, 512 (8th Cir. 2012). 

The district court did not err in denying a new trial. The author of the letter,

A.H., was Bear Runner’s cousin. Her testimony at the hearing, as the district court

found, “differed in a number of material respects from her letter” and the trial

testimony. A.H.’s letter said that both she and F.B. witnessed the incident, but A.H.

later admitted that F.B. was not present (F.B. did not appear in court even though

twice subpoenaed, and the parties stipulated that F.B. would not corroborate A.H.’s

account). Further, Dr. Donald Habbe, a pathologist who testified that the victim’s

injuries were consistent with injuries from barbed wire, “did not refute . . . testimony

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Court for the District 1

of South Dakota. 

-2-
and conclusions that the injuries were also consistent with an object with something

like a nail on the end of it.” The district court found A.H.’s testimony “presented

serious credibility concerns” and “serious reliability issues.” The court concluded

that A.H.’s testimony was unlikely to produce an acquittal at a new trial in light of the

“substantial evidence . . . presented at trial to support the jury’s verdicts of guilty.” 

Since “[n]ewly discovered evidence that is not credible is not likely to result in

acquittal in a second trial, . . . lack of credibility is sufficient grounds for denying a

motion for new trial.” United States v. Vasquez-Garcia, 340 F.3d 632, 641 (8th Cir.

2003).

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-