2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-14-2008 

# U SA v . K el l y
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-4080

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Ke l ly " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 589. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/589P 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. 06- 4080

_________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ant v. J AK E KELLY

_________ 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 i nal N o. 04- cr - 00605) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J a n E . D u b o is

__________ A r gued J anuary28, 2008
B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, and R E N D E L L and R O D R I G U E Z , * C i r cui tJ udges

________________

* H onor abl e J os eph H

. R odr i guez, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 ( Fi l ed: A ugus t14, 2008)

L eo R

. T s ao, E s qui r e [ ARGUE D] O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orP l ai nt i f f

-Appel l ant U ni t ed Stat es of

A m er i ca M a rk E . C e d ro n e , E s q . [ ARGUE D] C edr one & J anove Publ i c LedgerB ui l di ng 150 Sout h I ndepende nce M al l W es t , Sui t e 940 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orD ef endant

-Appel l ee J a ke Ke lly

__________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________
R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
I n J ul y2005, a j ur y found J ake K el l y ( “K el l y ”) gui l t yof p o s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n i n v i o l a t i on of3 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) a n d § 9 2 4 (e ). S o o n a f ter th e ju ryv e rd ict, K e l l y m o v e d f

o r a n e w tr ia l, a rg u in g , in tera lia , t h a t h e had r ece nt l ydi s cov e r e d n e w ev i dence of hi s i nnocenc e— t he hea r s ay sta tem e n t o f

V icto r Jo n e s, w h o p u rp o rte d lya d m itt e d to pos s es s i ng t he gun forw hi ch K ell y w as arr es t ed. A ft eran ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g at w h ich J o n es testi fie d , the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant ed K el l y ’ s m ot i on in par tand or der ed a ne w t r i al

. T he G overnm entappea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der , ar gui ng t hatt he C our tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n gr an ti ng K el l y ’ s m ot i on. S p ec ifi ca ll y , the G o v er n m en t con tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt err ed i n concl udi ng t hat( 1) K el l yhad exe r ci s ed s u ff ici ent di l i gen ce in r egar d t o t he di s coveryof t he new evi dence and ( 2) t he new l y di s cover ed evi dence w oul d “pr obabl ypr oduce a n a c q u itt a l” a t a n e w trial. F o r th e re a so n s sta ted b e lo w , w e w ill r ever s e the or derof t he D i s t r i ct C o ur tgr ant i ng K el l y ’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al and r emand for t he entr yof a j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .

BA CKGROUND
I . T he R ecor d at T ri al
O n Sept ember 28, 2004, K el ly w as char ged i n a onecounti ndi ct m entw i t h pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya convi ct ed f e l o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S. C. § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e )

. On J ul y19, 2005, t he mat t erpr ocee ded t o t r i al i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a.O pen i ns pect i ons of “nui s ance bar s ” ( A pp. 80) ar e conduc t ed 1 bya t as k for ce of

s t at e and l ocal offi ci al s “t o s ee i f anyi l l egal ac ti v ity[is] be ing co n d u cted su ch as u n d era g e d ri n k ing [ a n d /or] nar cot i cs s al es ” ( A pp. 81) and t o chec k forfi r e code , el ectr i cal c o d e , an d liq u o r en f

o rc e m e n t v io latio n s. A n o p e n in sp e c tio n is notper for m ed purs uant t o a s ear ch w arr antand, acc or di ngl y , bar patr on s ar e gen eral l yno tsear ched as partof the exerci se unles s i l l egal act i vi t y( s uch as drug orgun pos s es s i on) i s w i t nes s ed out i n t he open. 4 A tt r i al , the j ur yhear d t es t i m onyt hat , on M ay1, 2004, appr oxi m at el yni net een of fi cer s and i ns pec t or s fr om t he Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce D epart m ent ’ s V i ce E nfor cementU ni tand Nar c o t i cs St r i ke For ce, t he Phi l adel phi a D epart m entof Li cens es and I ns pect i ons , and t he P enns y l vani a S t at e Pol i ce c onduct ed an “open i ns pect i on” of C afé B r eez es , a r ow hous e barl ocat ed at 1 5131 C ol um bi a A venue. ( A pp. 81- 82. ) A tabout1: 00 a. m . t hat m o rn in g , tw o p lain c lo th e s “ d e c o y ” o f f ice rs e n te r e d th e b a r to det er m i ne w hether any i l l egal act i vi t y w as t aki ng pl ace . ( A pp. 8 1 .) A f ter b e in g in sid e f

o r a p p ro x im a telyf

if tee n to tw e n ty m i n u te s , t he dec oyoffi cer s cont act ed C orpor al R aym ond D rum m on d o f t he V i ce E nfo rcem ent U nit , w ho t hen l ed the r est of t he off

i cer s i nt o t he bar , announced t hei rpr es ence , and expl ai ned thatt heyw er e ther e t o con d uctan open i ns pect i on. T he G over nm entcal l ed thr ee of t he off i cer s pr es entt hat m or ni ng, i ncl udi ng C o rpor al D rum m ond, t o r ecountt he m o rn in g ’s e v e n ts

.C orpor al D rum m ond t es t i fi ed thatt her e w as a t ot al of 8 t o 10 2 peopl e i n t he barw hen the off i cer s and i ns pect or s ent er ed. 5 T he off i cer s t es t i fi ed thatt he barw i t hi n C afé B r eez es w as i n t he s hape o f a backw ar d “L, ” w i t h t he s hor ts i de of the barpos i t i oned cl os es t t o t he es t abl i s hm ent ’ s fr ontdoor

. O ffi cer D onna St ew ar t , a m ember of t he N ar cot i cs St r i ke For ce, s t at ed t hatonce s he ent er ed C afé B r eez es , s he pl ace d her s el f betw een th e b a r a n d th e f

ro n t d o o r a n d m o n ito re d th e p a tro n s c lo se st to her , w hi l e ot heroffi cer s m oni t or ed the patr ons att he otherend o f th e b a r. A c c o rd in g to O f f ice r S tew a rt, th e re w e re six p e o p le s i t t i ng t ow ar d t he fr ont of t he bar , t w o of w hi ch w er e the dec oy offi cer s . A m an, l at er d et er m i ned t o be K el l y , w as s eat ed on

2 t he fa rr i ghtof t he s hor ts ect i on of t h e bar ; t w o uni dent i fi ed w om en sa tt o h i s l e f

t ; a n d a n u n i d e n t i f

i e d ma n s a ta r o u n d t he corn er o f the bart o K el l y ’ s r i ght

. T he uni dent i fi ed man sa tat t he fi r s tbar s too l on the l ong s ect i on of t he bar , and the dec oy c o p s s a t d ire c tlyto h is rig h t.
O fficerSt ew ar tt es t i fi ed that , al m os ti m m edi at el y , s he t ook not e of K el l y , as “he w as l ooki ng ar ound, keptl ooki ng over hi s s h o u l d e r , h e l o o k e d i n my d i r e c t i o n , h e l o o k e d i n t he di r ect i on of t he door

. H e . . . appea r ed t o be fol l ow i ng t he other o f f ice rs a s th e yw a lk e d in to th e b a r w ith h is e y e s. H e sta rte d to s w e a t, h e w a s f

id g e tin g o n h is b a r s t o o l, h e c o u ld n ’t s ta ys till.” ( A pp. 125. ) O ffi cerSt ew ar teventual l yl eftt he fr ontof t he bar t o s pea k w i t h herpar t ner , O ffi cerB r antM i l es , anotherof t he6 offi cer s t he G over nm entcal l ed att r i al

. A ccor di ng t o O ffi cer St ew ar t , s he r etur ned t o herpos tat t he fr ontof t he bar

— al ong th e w a ll b e tw e e n K e lly a n d th e f e m a le s e a ted to h is le f

t— w ith in

“ ma yb e t e n s e c o n d s . ” ( App

. 1 2 5

. ) At t h a tp o i n t , Off i cer S tew a rt o b se rv e d th a t K e lly “ w a s lea n e d o v e r, cr u n c h e d o v e r in hi s s eat w i t h hi s hands bel ow t he barw her e I coul dn’ ts ee them and he s t opped fi dget i ng. H e keptm ovi ng hi s head a r ound, he k ep t l o o k ing aro u n d b u t he h ad stop p ed m o v ing h is bo d y .” ( A pp. 126. ) O fficer S t ew ar tnextdes cr i bed the fol l ow i ng e v e n ts:
W hen I r e tu r n e d t o t h e f r o n to f t h e b a rI s t ood t he r e fo rmaybe a no t he rmi nu t e ort w o, j us t keepi ng an ey e on eve r y one, keepi ng an ey e on t he def endant

. A V i ce O ffi cer as ked s om eone f or t hei rI D m uch fur t herdow n t he bar

. I tw as att hat poi ntt hat t he defenda ntr eac hed qui ckl yt ow ar ds h i s b a c k

. At t h a t po i n tI s t o p p e d h i m, I p u tmy h an d s o n h im , I h ad h im p u t h is h an d s o n the b ar. I w al ked aro und behi nd t he def endants o I w as sta n d in g b e tw e e n th e d e f e n d a n t a n d th e f

e m a le to h i s l e f ta n d a t t h a t p o i n tI h a d h i m s t a n d u p . As he s t ood up[, ] t he gun fe l l fr om h is l ap, i tw as a b o u t m id -th ig h

. It f

e ll d o w n a lo n g h is le f

t leg , it h it th e b ra ss c h a ir r a il a t th e b a se o f th e b a r w ith a lou d m etal clan g an d then itland ed o n the f loo r.7 I y el l ed “G un. ” O t heroffi cer s rus hed up t ow ar ds m e, t hey pl ace d handcuf fs on t he defenda nt and I rec o v ere d the w ea p o n fro m the f loo r. ( A pp. 127- 28. ) B ot h C orpor al D rum m ond and O ffi cerM i l es t es t i fi ed t hatt heyhear d O ffi ce r S te w ar ty el l “gun” ( A pp. 83, 177) ; O ffi cerM i l es t es t i fi ed thathe hea r d a pr ece di ng “thud” ( A p p . 1 77)

. N ei t herC orpor al D rum m ond norO ffi cerM i l es t es t i fi ed that he saw t he gun fal l fr om K el l y ’ s l ap, as bot h m en w er e pos i t i oned atdi ffe r entl ocat i ons al ong t he bar

. A ft er recoveri ng t he gun , O ffi cer S t ew art gav e i t t o O ffi c e r M i l es, w h o re m o v e d th e m a g a z in e a n d a b u lle t f ro m th e c h a m b e r.
T he G ov ernm ent’ s fi nal w i t n e ss a tt ri al , O ffi cer Ernest Bo t t o me ro f t h e P h i l a d e l p h i a P o l i c e De p a r t me n t ’ s F i r e a r ms I dent i fi cati o n U ni t , t es t i fi ed thatt he w eapon i n ques t i on w as in d e e d a “ f

ire a rm ” a s d e f

in e d b yf e d e ra l law a n d th a t h e c o u ld notr etr i eve a s er i al num berfr om t he fi rea rm . T he part i es ul t i m at el ys t ipu lat ed that( 1) t he gun qual i fi ed as a fi r earm for t he purpos e of the s t atut e unde rw hi ch K el l yw as char ged; ( 2) t he fi r earm had been m anufa ctur ed out s i de of Penns y l vani a; and ( 3) pr i or to M ay1, 2004, K el l yhad bee n convi ct ed of a cr i m e puni s habl e byi m pr i so n m entform or e than one y ear w i t h i n th e m e a n in g o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g ). Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Ke lly ( “D i s t. C t

. O p. ”) , C r i m . A

. N o. 04- 605, 2006 W L 2506353, at*2 ( E

. D

. Pa. A u g . 2 9 , 2 006)

. K el l yoffe r edB efor e the t r i al began, K el l y al l eged t hat , ats om e poi ntaft er 3 h e w a s a rr e s te d , h e s ta te d , “ S o m e o n e th re w th e g u n a t m e .” D i s t

. C t

. O p. at*1. T he G overnm entfi l ed a m ot i on i n l i m i ne to excl ude t he s t at ement , and the D i s t r i ctC our tpr el i m i nar i l yrul ed t hat i tw oul d be exc l uded unl es s defe ns e couns el coul d l ay foundat i on foradmitt ing i tas an exc i t ed ut t er ance orpr es ent se n se im p re ss io n . A t tria l, d e f e n se c o u n se l m a d e n o a ttem p t to laysu ch a f

o u n d ati o n , an d thu s, the stat em en t w as n ev er h ea rd b yth e ju ry. T h o u g h K e l l y r e q u e s t e d ( b y pr o s e l et t er ) a nd r ece i ved a 4 s i xt y - dayext ensio n t o fi l e a mot i on forj udgm entof ac qui t t al pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e o f C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 29, he neve r fi l ed s uch a mot i on. 8 s ever al phot ogr aphs of C afé B r eez es i nt o evi d e n c e, butcal l ed no w i t nes s es on hi s behal f. 3
O n J ul y21, 2005, t he j ur yfound K ell ygui l t yof pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe lon in vi ol at i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) a n d § 9 2 4 (e ).
I I . P os t - T ri al P roce edi ngs
N ot long a ft ert he tr i al ended, K el l yr et ai ned new couns el , w ho, on A ugus t1, 2005, fi l ed a M ot i on for N ew T r i al and Leave t o Suppl ement pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of C r i m i nal P ro c e d u re 3 3 ( “ R u le 3 3 ” ) o n K e lly ’s b e h a lf

. L e a v e to 4
s uppl ement w as gr anted, and K el l yfi l ed hi s couns el edT he D i s t r i ctC our tappoi nt ed couns el t o repr es entJ ones at 5 (c o n tin u e d ...) 9 su p p lem e n tal m o tio n o n O c to b e r 6 , 2 0 0 5

. In th a t m o tio n , K e lly a rg u e d , in tera lia , t hathe had r ecent l ydi s cover ed evi dence of h is i n n o c e n c e th a t ju stif ied th e g ra n tin g o f

a n e w trial. K e lly at t ache d t o t he mot i on a s t at ement fr om K emahsiah G ant ( “G ant ”) , a fr i end of K el l y ’ s , t hatdes cr ibed a conver s at i on betw een G antand a m utual acqua i nt ance , V i ct orJ ones (“ Jo n e s” ), w h o w a s at C a f é B re e z e s th e n ig h t o f

K e lly ’s a rre st. A ccor di ng t o G ant ’ s s t at ement , s om et i m e i n t he s um m er of 2005 , s he w as t al ki ng t o J ones aboutK el l y ’ s gun char ge, and J ones t ol d her“t hatt he gun w as no t Ja k e’s gun t he pol i ce f o u n d

. . . . [ J o n e s ] s a i d h e h a d t h e g u n . W h e n t h e p o l i c e c a me i n[, ] he gotner vous and thr ew i tdow n on t he fl oor . ” ( A pp. 4 2 4

. ) W h en G an t ask ed Jo n e s w h yh e h ad n o t com e f o rw ard ear l i er , J o n e s d i d n o ta n s wer . A fe w w e e k s l a t e r , a f t er stru g g lin g w ith th e d e c isio n , G a n t re c o u n ted th e c o n v e rsa tio n to K el l y ’ s gi r l fr i end, J acki e C ephas ( “C ephas ”) , w ho encour aged G a n t to sp e a k w ith K e lly ’s law y e r. A b o u t a m o n th a n d a h a lf l a t e r , G a n td i d s o . G a n t ’ s s t a t e m e n tw a s g i v e n j u s tt w o d a ys b e f o re K e lly f

ile d h is s u p p le m e n ta l m o tio n f o r a n e w tr ia l.
O n J une 8, 2 0 06, aft erbr i efi ng on t he mot i on w as c o m p le te , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g to addr es s K el l y ’ s new l ydi s cover ed evi dence cl ai m . A tt he heari ng , K el l ycal l ed t hree w i t nesses: G ant, C eph as, and Jones. 5(

. . . cont i nued) 5 t he hea r i ng an d to advi s e hi m of hi s Fi ft h A m endment r i ght a g a in s t s e lf

-i n c ri m in a tio n . 10 A . G ant
A s t he fi r s tw i t nes s t o t ake t he s t and, G antt es t i fi ed that sh e h a d k n o w n C e p h a s, K e lly , a n d Jo n e s e a c h f o r a p p ro x im a tely e ig h t ye a r s a s o f

th e d a te o f

th e h e a rin g . In th e p a st, G a n t, C ephas , and J ones had al l w or ked att he s ame com p anyand liv e d o n th e sa m e b lo c k (th e 8 0 0 b lo c k o f W yn n e w o o d R o a d ) in Phi l adel phi a, aboutel even bl ocks fr om C afé B r eez es . T hough G a n te v e n tu a l l y m o v e d t o a n o t h e r n e i g h b o r h o o d w i t h i n t h e c i t y, C ephas and J ones

— w ho G antd e s c r i b e d a s “ good fr i ends ” ( A pp. 2 8 7 )— re m a in e d

. W h e n a sk e d b yd e f e n se c o u n se l h o w K e llyf it i n t o t h e “ c i r c l e o f

f r i e n d s , ” Ga n tt e s t i f

i e d t h a ts h e h a d k n o wn K e lly “ a s lo n g a s [ s h e ’d ] k n o w n J a c k ie [ C e p h a s ].” (A p p . 2 8 8 .) K el l yand C ephas had bee n dat i ng “[a ] bouton and off f orei ght y e a rs .” (A p p . 2 8 8 .)
A ccordi ng t o G ant’ s t est i m on y , t he “ c i rcl e of f ri end s” w o u ld “a ll h an g o u t at ” C af é B ree ze s, “a n eigh b o rho o d b a r” w h ere G an t con side red h e rse lf a “ reg u lar pa tr o n ” a n d w h ere J ones , K el l y , and C ephas w oul d fr equent“[e ] veryw eek. ” ( A pp. 289. ) T hough G antw as notatC afé B r eez es t he m o r ni ng of K el l y ’ s arr es t , “peopl e att he bar ” t ol d hert hat K el l yhad bee nG antt es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on t hat s he w ai t ed s o l ong 6 to te ll C e p h a s b e c a u se sh e d id n o t w a n t to “ ra t V icto r o u t” ( r efe r r i ng t o J ones ) and “r eal l y di dn’ t w ant t o getinvol ved, p e rio d , w ith th e c a se ” d u e to a p rio r e x p e rie n c e a s a w itn e ss to a c ri m e . (A p p . 3 0 1 -0 3 .) 11 a r r e s t e d “ ‘ [ f

] o ra g u n ’ ” w h e n s h e a r r i v e d t h e r e l a t e rt h a td a y. (A p p . 3 1 1

. )
O n J u ly 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a s “ s u p p o rt f o r J a c k ie a n d a ls o J a k e ,” G an t acc o m p an ied C ep h as to co u rtf o r t h e re ad ing o f K ell y ’s ver di c t

. ( App

. 2 9 2

. ) Abo u t a wee k o r s o l a t e r , a ft er an uns ucce s s ful at t empt at vi s i t i ng C ephas , G ant s t opped byt o s ee J on e s , w ho l i ve d on l y a “ ha l f a bl oc k” a w a y fr om C eph as. ( A pp . 296. ) G antexpl ai ned thats he and J ones w er e havi ng a gener al conver s at i on aboutw ho amongstt hei rfr i ends w oul d be t he nextt o get m ar r i ed. G ant s ur m i s ed t hati tw oul d have be en C ephas and K el l y w er e i tnotforK el l ybei ng i n pr i s on. A tt hat poi nt in t he conve r s at i on, G antt es t i fi ed thatJ ones paus ed and s ai d, “I have s om ethi ng t o t el l y ou. ” (A pp. 297. ) W hen G ant as ked w hati tw as , J ones s t at ed, “It w as n’ tJ ake’ s gun. ” ( A pp. 297. ) J ones th en reveal ed thati tw as he w ho had the gun and t hr ew i ton the fl oor . G antas ked, “W el l , w hydi dn’ ty ou s ay anyt hi ng[?] ” ( A pp. 299. ) J ones neverr es ponded.
A few w eeks aft ert hi s conver s at i on, G antappr oache d C ephas w i t h w hats he had l earned. C ephas as ked G antt o s peak 6
w ith K e lly ’ s a tt o rn e y , b u t G a n t in iti a llyre f u se d . S o m e tim e in12 Se pt ember 2005, how ever , G antchange d herm i nd, and on O ctober4, 2005, s he met w i t h W i l l ar d B r ow n ( “B r ow n”) , an i nves t i gat orfor K el l y ’ s at t or ney . A ccor di ng t o G ant , dur i ng her conve r s at i on w i t h B r ow n, he dr aft ed a s t at ement , w hi ch s he r ev iew ed and s i gned. I tw as t hi s s t at ement t hats er ved as t he basi s fo rK el l y ’ s s uppl ement al m ot i on fora new t r i al

. G ant n ev er return ed the telep h o n e c all s o f th e G o v ern m en t’ s i nves t i gat or , C hr i s L ee.
W hen as ked i f s he had a nydi s cus s i ons aboutthe su b sta n c e o f

K e lly ’s c a se w ith e ith e r Jo n e s , C e p h a s, o r K e lly betw ee n t he dat e of K el l y ’ s arr es tand hi s s ubs equent c o n v ictio n , G a n t te stif

ied th a t s h e h a d n o t. A c c o rd in g to G a n t, s he neve ras ked anyques t i ons aboutK el l y ’ s case beca us e s he “d id n o t w an t to g et in v o lved at all ” a n d b ec au se sh e “ h ad [h er] o w n issue s at t h e ti m e.” (A p p . 3 3 3 -34

. )
B . C ephas
T h e second w i t nes s t o t es t i fyatt he evi dent i aryhear i ng w as C ephas , K el l y ’ s gi r l fr i end of ove r ei ghty ear s . A tt he begi nni ng of hert es t i m ony , C ephas w as as ked s ever al ques t i ons aboutherr el at i ons hi ps w i t h K el l y , G ant , an d Jo nes . She c o n f irm e d th a t sh e h a d b e e n ro m a n tica llyin v o lv e d w ith K e lly for“goi ng on ni ne” y ear s as of t he dat e of the heari n g . ( A pp. 338. ) A s t o her r el at i ons hi p w i t h G ant , C ephas des cr i bed heras a “ g o o d f

r i e n d [ ] ” ( App

. 3 3 9 ) , who s h e me ti n i t i a l l yt h r ough w or k and w ho, i n t he past , l i ved “thr ee, fourdoor s dow n” fr omC ephas i ndi cat ed t hat , al t hough K el l y and Jones w oul d s peak 7 atC afé B r eez es, the conve r s at i ons w er e notext ens i ve, as t hey “had nothi ng t o t al k about ” out s i de of thei r comm on connec t i on to C e p h a s . (A p p . 3 5 4 .) 13 C ephas on W ynnew ood R oad. ( A pp. 338. ) C ephas m etJ ones th ro u g h w o rk a s w e ll, a n d th e tw o “ [ f ]rie n d s” (A p p . 3 3 9 ; s ee al s o A pp. 340) “ended up l i vi ng on t he s ame bl ock, ” i

. e. , t he 800 bl ock of W ynnew ood R oad ( A pp. 339)

. T hough G anthad m o v e d f ro m th e n e ig h b o rh o o d , C e p h a s a n d Jo n e s co n tin u e d to l i ve on the s ame bl ock. C ephas expl ai ned that K el l y knew G ant and J ones t hr ough heran d t hatt he gr oup w oul d s oci al i ze t oget heratC afé B r eez es . C ephas w as notatC af é B r eez es t he n ig h t o f K e lly’s a rr e s t.
W hen as ked abouthercont actw i t h J ones betw een K el l y ’ s M ay1, 2004 arr es tand hi s J ul y21, 2005 convi ct i on, C ephas t es t i fi ed that s he cer t ai nl yw oul d have s een J ones dur i ng that ti m e p eriod b ec au se, “ W e li v e o n the sam e b lock an d w e’re fri e n d s.” (A pp . 34 5. ) Th e t w o d i d n ot, ho w ever, dis cuss K el l y ’ s cas e othert han C ephas m ent i oni ng t hatK el l yw as goi ng to c our t

. C ephas fur t hert es t i fi ed thatbot h s he and K el l ygot t og et her w i t h Jon es atC afé B reezes “[m ]aybe ab ou t ” t w enty t i m es aft erK el l y ’ s arr es tand bef or e hi s convi ct i on. ( A pp. 7 355. ) A ccor di ng t o C ephas , w hen s he, K el l y , J ones, an d G ant w er e t oget her befor e K el l y ’ s convi ct i on, t he gr oup di d nots peak ab o u t K ell y ’s ca se. A n d w h en ask ed b ythe C o u rt , “W ere there any di s cus s i ons befor e t he ver di ct betw een y ou and K ell y and14 M s . G antand M r . J ones . . . ei t hert ogetherors epar at el yabout t he gun?, ” C ephas r es ponded, “A boutt he gun, no. N o. ” ( A pp. 3 5 8 .)
A s t o her pos t

- t r i al conver s at i on w i t h G ant, C ephas e x p lain e d th a t, a c o u p le o f w e e k s a f ter th e v e rd ict, G a n t ca m e to herand t ol d her , “y ou know , [Jo n es] t ol d m e he w as t her e the ni ghtw hen Jake got arr es t ed and he t hr ew t he gun and J ake w as appr ehe n d ed for i t

. ” ( A pp. 346. ) A ft erl earni ng t hi s , C ephas cont act ed K el l y ’ s at t or ney ( w i t houtfi r s tcont act i ng K el l y ) , w ho e x p re ss e d in ter e st in h a v in g o n e o f h is in v e s tig a to rs s p e a k to G a n t a n d J o n e s . F o r a f e w w e e k s, G a n t re f

u se d to sp e a k w ith any one, buteventual l ys he agr eed. In the m eant i m e, C ephas tes tifie d th a t sh e “ c o n f

ro n te d ” Jo n e s a b o u t w h a t G a n t h a d to ld h e r, as k in g h im , “W h yd id n ’t y o u tell m e ? Y o u c o u ld h a v e to ld m e bef ore y ou t old her. ” (A pp . 34 9-50.) A ccordi ng t o C eph as, J ones s ai d not hi ng i n r es pons e, “he j us tl ooked daz ed and s tr a ig h t. . . . A s if

h e k n e w h e w a s w ro n g .” (A p p . 3 5 0 .)
C ephas t es t i fi ed t hat , al t hough s he and K el l ydi d not fr equent l ys peak a bouthi s cas e, w hen theydi d di s cus s t he ca s e, K e lly “ ju s t k e p t o n s a y in g it w a s n ’t h is g u n .” (A p p . 3 5 1 , see al so A pp. 352. ) K el l ydi d notexpl ai n anyt hi ng m o re aboutt he c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g h is a rre st. In f a c t, K e lly n e v e r to ld C e p h a s th a t Jo n e s w a s a t C a f é B re e z e s th e n ig h t o f

th e a rre st, and C ep h as di d notfi nd outt hatJ ones w as att he barunt i l her c o n v e rsa tio n w ith G a n t.W h en as ked on cr os s - exami nat i on, “H ow l ong have y ou 8 k n o w n Jak e K el ly ? , ” Jo n es re ad il yv o lun teered , “I think Jac k ie’s been da t i ng [K el l y ] for a coupl e of y ear s . I m ean, att hi s poi nt i t ’ s been a few y ear s , y eah. ” ( A pp. 385. ) B ut w hen Jones w as as ked on di r ectexami nat i on, “[W ] hati s y ourunder s t andi ng of M r . K el l y ’ s r el at i ons hi p w i t h M s . C ephas ?, ” he r es ponded, “I m ean I know t heyknow eac h ot her

. I m ean I don’ tknow how w e ll o f f ri e n d s th e ya re b u t I k n o w th e yk n o w e a c h o th e r.” (A p p . 3 6 6 .) 15 C . Jones
T he l as tof t he def

en s e w i t nes s es t o t ake the s t and w as J o n es. Jones confi r m ed thathe l i ved on the 800 bl ock of W ynnew ood R oad, t he s ame b lock as C ephas , and des cr i bed C e p h a s a s “ o n e o f m yb e st f rie n d s.” (A p p . 3 6 5 ; see al so A pp. 3 8 5 (“ M e a n d Ja c k ie’ s w o rk liv e s c o n f licte d b u t b e c a u se sh e is a g o o d f r i e n d o f mi n e , I me a n I wo u l d g o t o h e r h o u s e a n yt i me o f t h e n i g h to ra n y t i me o f t h e d a y , i t d i d n ’ t r e a l l y ma t t e r . ” ) He t es t i fi ed that he w as “fr i ends ” w i t h K el l yt hr ough C ephas ( A pp. 8 3 8 5 , s ee al

s o A p p . 3 6 6 ) a n d th a t, a lth o u g h h e a n d K e llyw o u ld notgo outt ogether w ithouther , t he tw o m en w oul d t al k and h a n g o u t w h e n th e yw e re to g e th e r.
A s t o C af

é B r eez es , J ones des cr i bed i tas a “ha ng- out s pot ” w her e, “[a ] ts om e poi nt , ” J ones , C ephas , K el l y , and G ant w ou l d g o “ e ve r yTue s da y , Thur s da y , Fr i da y ” a nd a l so Satur day s . ( A pp. 367, 386. ) J ones and K el l yw er e both atC afé16 B r eez es on M ay1, 2004, t he morni ng of K ell y ’ s arr es t

. ( A pp. 386. ) W hen fi r s tas ked i f he ha d been dr i nki ng t hatni ght , J ones r e s p o n d e d , “ N o t a l o t

. ” ( A p p . 3 6 9

. ) L a t e ri n h i s t e s t i m o n y, how ever , J ones vol unt eer ed thathe w as s o “drunk” that“the ro o m w a s s p in n in g .” (A p p . 3 9 2 .)
J ones pai nt ed a pi ctur e of a verycr ow ded bar w it h no empt y s eat s and peopl e s t andi ng al l ar ound hi m . ( A pp. 370, 372 (“ I m e a n , th e re w a s p e o p le w e re b u m p in g in to m e a ll n ig h t, i t w as pr et t yt i ght

. ”) , A pp. 3 89 ( “Ther e w as peopl e . . . s t andi ng next t o m e, t her e w er e peopl e s t andi ng behi nd m e, there w as peopl e . . . on bot h s i des , t her e w er e peopl e s t andi ng al l ar ound m e. ”). ) H e t est i fi ed thatw hen t he poli ce ent ered C afé B reezes, h e w a s s itt in g o n th e lo n g sid e o f th e in v e rte d L -sh a p e d b a r in t he fi r s ts eatcl os es tt o t he fr on t d o o r, and K el l yw as s i t t i ng ar ound t he cornert o hi s l eft , on t he s h o r ts i de of the L shape

. ( See A pp. 370 ( [W ] e w er e ki nd of nextt o eac h ot her

. ”)

. ) W hen as ked t o d e s c r i b e , i n h i s o wn wor d s , wha th a p p e n e d whe n he fi r s tr eal i zed thatt he p o li ce w er e pr es ent , J ones s ett he fol l ow i ng s cene :
I w as sit ti ng att he bar

. I had pr et t ym uch done dr i nki ng, I di d n ’t w ant t o dr i nk anym or e, I w as r ead yt o g o . Th e r e was a l i t t l e b i to f p u s h i n g, s o me b o d yp u s h e d m y s h o u l d e r , k i n d o f l i k e my b a c k b u t p e o p le w e re b ru sh in g in to m e a ll n ig h t. Som ebodybrus hed i nt o m e and s om ebod y put17 s om ethi ng i n m yl ap and it w as a gun. A nd I p u s h e d it o f

f o f m yla p o n to th e f

lo o r. ( A pp. 372. ) J ones at fi r s tcoul d notr emem berfr om w hi ch di r ect i on t he gun ca m e and in w hi ch di r ect i on he pus hed i toff hi s l ap, butw hen pr es s ed on cr os s exami nat i on, J ones pr ovi ded s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s . J o n e s d e d u c e d t h a t t h e gu n “ c a me fr om pr obabl y t he r i ght s i de of m e, m or e s o t han the l efts i de of m e ” (A p p . 3 8 9 ), an d f e ll i n f ro n t o f h im , slig h tlyto h is le f t, becau se he brushed i tw i t h h i s l eft han d. A s the g un fel l , i tfi rs t hi tt he bas e of the bar , w hi ch w as w ood, and then dr opped t o t he til e f lo o r, m a k in g a “ c lac k e tyso u n d ” (A p p . 3 8 8 ); it did n o t h it t he met al baratJ ones ’ s fee t

. J on es turn ed ar ound t o s ee w ho d ro p p e d th e g u n in h is la p , b u t co u ld n o t tell w h o d id it. A ccor di ng to J ones , t her e w er e no w or ds

— s poken or uns poken— betw een hi m and K el l y aft ert he gun dr opped t o t he fl oor . J ones di d notpr ovi de anydet ai ls a b o u tK el l y ’ s actual arr es t ; he di d t es t i fyt hatats om e poi ntaft ert he gun fe l l t o t he fl oor , t he pol i ce “ s w ar m ed the corner ” of the barand r ecove r ed th e g u n . (A p p . 3 7 3 .)
J ones t es t i fi ed thathe w as “pr et t ys u re” tha tt he gun he pu s h e d f r o m h i s l a p was t h e s a me g u n f o r whi c h Kel l y w as arr es t ed. ( A pp. 374. ) T hough J ones “thoughtt hat[K el l y ] w as w ron g lyarrested , ” h e d id n o t sayan y thing b ec au se h e “ d idn ’t w antt o have a ny t hi ng t o do w i t h i t

. ” ( A pp. 376. ) B etw een K el l y ’ s arr es t and hi s convi ct i on, J ones di d nots peak t o any one abo ut w hat happ ened t hat night. A ft er J on es adm i t t ed o n cross-18 exami nat i on t o s eei n g K el l yanyw her e fr om one t o t hr ee t i m es a f t e rKel l y ’ s a r r e s t , t h e f

o l l o wi n g e x c h a n g e o c c u r r e d b e t w een Jo n e s a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t: Q : D id h e [ K e lly ] e v e r - - d id h e e v e r ta lk to y ou abouthi s cr i m i nal cas e?

A : N o. Q : D i d he eve ras k y ou w hathappene d?
A : N o. Q : H e neve rs ai d t o y ou: hey , V i ct or , y ou w er e s i t t i ng r i ghtnex t to me, di d y ou s ee w ho t hr ew t he gun?
A : N o. Q : H e n e v e r m e n tio n e d h is crim in a l c a se a t all to y o u , at a ll?
A : W e d i d n ’ td i s c u s s t h e c a s e . A c tu a l l y, w h e n I w a s , a t th e tim e I w a s s e e in g h im I r eal l y t hought i t w as over . I di dn’ tknow th a t h e still h a d a c a s e . W h e n I sa w h im19 aft er t hat i nci dent [hi s arr es t ] I as s um ed that itw as o v er. (A p p . 3 9 5 .)
T ow ar d t he end of hi s di r ect t es t i m ony , J ones w as as ked to d esc ri b e the co n v ersa ti o n h e h ad w ith G a n t after K ell y ’s c o n v ictio n . A c c o rd in g to Jo n e s, G a n t sto p p e d b yh is a p a rtm e n t, w her e the tw o w er e “j us than g ing o utfora mi nut e, ” and G ant a s k e d h im if

h e h a d h e a rd w h a t h a p p e n e d to K e lly. (A p p . 3 8 0 .) G antt ol d J ones t hatK el l yw as i n j ai l on t he gun cha r ge, and J ones r es ponded t hatthat w as “fuc ked up bec aus e i t[t he gun] w as n’ t hi s . ” ( A pp. 380. ) G ant as ked J ones how h e k n ew tha t th e g u n w a s n o t K e lly’s , a n d J o n e s “ to ld h e r w h a t h a p p e n e d .” ( A pp. 380. ) O n cr os s exami nat i on, J ones expl ai ned:
I t ol d hert hatI w as s i t t i ng att he barpr et t ym uch nextt o J ake a nd w hen the cops came i n, w hi ch I d idn ’trea ll y see w h en the co p s ca m e in. I didn ’t r eal i ze that t he cops w er e ac tual l yi n t her e behi nd m e unt i l s om ebody dr opped t hat [gun] i n m yl ap. A n d o n c e it g o t d ro p p e d in m y l a p [ ,] I p u sh e d it off a nd I m ean a nd t hat ’ s w hat , and that ’ s i n fac t how I knew i t w as n’ t hi s . I knew t hathe di dn’ tdo it. A n d th a t’ s p re tty m u c h w h a t I to ld [ G a n t]

. ( A pp. 387. ) J ones t es t i fi ed t hat he neve rt ol d G antt hathe thr ew th e g u n b e c a u s e h e w a s n e rv o u s w h e n th e p o lic e w a lk e d in

.20 A t so m e p o in t af

ter th is c o n v e rsa tio n , C e p h a s c a m e to J ones and “as ked [hi m ] w hy[he] di dn’ tt el l herw hathappene d” ( A pp. 381) ; s he d id notas k hi m forhi s ver s i on of w hat h a p p e n e d , b u td i d a s k h i m t o s p e a k t o a d e f e n s e i n v e s t i g a t o r . At fi r s t , J ones r efus ed, butt hen eve ntual l yagr eed

. Jones t ol d t he i nves t i gat ort hatif

any one w er e t o s er ve a s ubpoena on hi m or a sk h im to tes tify , h e “ w o u ld n ’t g iv e a c o m m e n t” a n d “ w o u ld pl e a d t h e Fi f

t h ” b e c a u s e h e “ d i d n ’ twan tt o d i s c u s s i t

. ” ( A pp. 382. ) A ft er t hat conver s at i on, K el l y ’ s couns el cont act ed J ones t o expl ai n t hatt he C our tw ant ed t o appoi nt couns el forhi m ; t hey d id n o t discu ss the fa cts o f the ca se o r t h e su b stan ce o f Jo n es’s p o tential test im o n y . Jo n es n ev er m et w ith the G o v ern m en t’ s i n v e s t i g a t o r , d e s p i t e t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ’ s o f f e rt o “ s p e a k wi t h [ h i m] an yti m e a n d an yw h ere . ” (A p p . 4 0 0

. )
W h e n q u e stio n e d a b o u t h is d e c isio n n o t to in v o k e h is Fi ft h A m endment r i ght s , J ones fi r s texpl ai ned, “I had a change o f h e a rt o n lyb e c a u se c o m e th in k in g a b o u t it , I f e lt th a t I c o u ld g e t m ys e lf in to tro u b le b yre a llyn o t sa y in g w h a t h a p p e n e d if y o u ’r e a s k in g m e q u e s tio n s a n d I o n ly s a y I p le a d th e F if th [ .] . . . I d o n ’ t k n o w, i t j u s t d i d n ’ t f e e l r i g h t

. I ’ v e n e v e r . . . hear d of anybodyactual l y doi ng i t

. I know t hat i t ’ s t he Fi ft h A m endment butI ’ ve neve ractual l yhear d of anybodygoi ng t o C our tand s ay i ng t heypl ead t he F i ft h. ” ( A pp. 397. ) B efor e hi s t es t i m ony ended, J ones cl ar i fi ed, “I d o n ’tfee l t hatI di d anyt hi ng w r ong. I fel tt hati tw oul d be bet t er form e t o s ayexac t l yw hathappene d ra th e r t h a n to ju s t s a yn o c o m m e n t.” (A p p . 3 9 9 .)21 D . O f

f i cer C l ark
A ft ert he t es t i m onyo f

Kel l y ’ s wi tnes s es , t he G overnm ent ca ll ed P h il ad elph ia P o li ce O ff icer C laren ce C lark o f the C ity ’s V ice S q u ad

. O ff

icer C lark w as o n e o f th e tw o d ec o yo ff icers s e n t in to C a f

é B re e z e s th e m o rn in g o f K e lly ’s a rre st. W h ile t her e, t hei rr es pons ibil i t i es w er e t o “l ook foranyunder age d rin k e rs, a n y ill e g a l d ru g s o r an y ill e g a l a c tiv ity g o in g o n w ith in the b ar.” (A p p . 4 0 8

. )
A ccor di ng t o hi s t es t i m ony , O ffi cer C l ar k and the other under coveroffi cer , O ffi cer Fai rbanks , ent er ed C afé B r eez es at “appr oxi m at el y12: 00, 1: 00 o’ cl ock i n t he m or ni ng” on M ay1, 2 0 0 4

. ( Ap p . 4 0 7

. ) T h e o f f i c e r s wa l k e d t o t h e b a ra n d s a ti n t wo se a ts c lo se to th e d o o r; O f f ice r C lar k to o k th e se a t im m e d iate ly to th e rig h t o f

Jo n e s, a n d O f

f ice r F a irb a n k s s a t im m e d iate lyto th e ri gh tof O ffi cer C l ark. O ffi cer C l ark con fi rm ed thatK elly w as s eat ed i n “[t ] he fi r s ts eaton t he others i de of the L of t he bar ” nextt o t w o femal es . ( A pp. 409. ) A ft eror der i ng a bee rand en g ag ing in co n v ersa ti o n w ith O ff icer F airba n k s, O ff

icer C lark g o t u p f ro m h is s e a t a n d w e n t to th e b a th ro o m a re a to c a ll h is s u p er vi s or , C orpor al D rum m ond, t o t he s cene . A ft erO ffi cer C l ar k r etur ned t o hi s s eat , C orpor al D rum m o nd arr i ved and a n n o u n c e d t h a t h e a n d m e m b e r s o f t h e V i c e S q u a d a n d L &I U ni tw er e t her e t o do an open i ns pect i on of t he bar

. O ffi cer C l ar k di d nothear a g u n dr op t o t he fl oorw hen the pol i ce e n ter e d th e b a r, n o r— f

ro m w h e re h e w a s s itt in g a t th e b a r— d id O ffi cerC l ar k r emem berhear i ng “a l oud m et al cl ang” a r ound t heK el l yhad al s o bas ed hi s new t r i al m ot i on on ar gum ent s t hat 9 ( 1) t r i al couns el w as i neff ect i ve; ( 2) t he gui l t yver di ctw as aga i n s tt h e wei g h to f

t h e e v i d e n c e ; a n d ( 3 ) t h e Cou r te r r e d by excl udi ng K el l y ’ s s t at em en t tha t“s om eone thr ew t he gun at [him ]. ” T he D i stri ct C ou rt ult i m at el yrej ect ed these ar gu m ents , d ism iss in g K e lly ’s in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im w i t ho ut pr ej ud i ce and t he rem ai ning cl ai m s on thei r m eri t s. B eca us e K el l yhas notappea l ed thes e aspe cts of t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s ru lin g , w e d o n o t d is c u s s th e m in d e ta il h e re . 22 t i m e of K el l y ’ s arr es t

. ( A pp. 413- 14. ) A ccor di ng t o O ffi cer C lark, “a ll I rem em b er he aring is a y ell , so m eo n e y ell ing ‘gu n . ’” (A p p . 4 1 3 .) A t th a t p o in t in tim e , O f f ice r S tew a rt w a s c lo se r in p ro x im ity to K e lly th a n w a s O f f ic e r C la rk

. W hen as ked di r ect l yw hethert her e w as any one s i t t i ng behi nd hi m w hen C orpor al D rum m ond and the other s arr i ved, O ffi cer C l ar k r es ponded, “N o. ” ( A pp. 411. ) H e al s o test if i ed th a t th e re w a s n o o n e sta n d in g b e h in d th e p e rso n se a ted to h is le f t, i

. e. , J o n e s . I I I . P os t - H eari ng P roce edi ngs
A ft ers uppl ement al br i efi ng, t he D i s t r i ctC ou rtdeni ed K e lly ’s m o tio n in p a rt, g ra n ted it i n p a r t, a n d u lti m a tely concl uded t hat K el l y ’ s new l y di s cover ed evi dence w arr ant ed a n e w tr ia l. T h e G o v e rn m e n t f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. 923 W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th is m a tter p u rsu a n t to 18 U

. S. C

. § 3731.24 S TANDA RD O F REVI EW
A s a m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial u n d e r R u le 3 3 is d ire c ted to th e d istric t co u rt’s d isc re tio n , “o u r f u n c tio n o n a p p e a l is to d e c id e w h e th e r th e trial ju d g e a b u se d th a t d isc re tio n o r f a iled to exer ci s e it

. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . Ia n n e lli , 528 F. 2d 1290, 1292 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 ). “B yd e f in it io n , a d istric t co u rt ‘a b u se s its d i s c r e t i o n whe n i tma k e s a n e r r o ro f l a w. ’ ” U

n it ed St at es v. As kari , 1 4 0 F. 3d 536, 539 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( en banc ) ( quot i ng Koon v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 8 U

. S

. 8 1 , 1 0 0 (1 9 9 6 )) , vacat ed on othergr ounds , 15 9 F

. 3d 77 4 ( 3d C i r. 19 98 ). T hu s, “‘[t ]he abu se of dis cr et i on s t andar d i ncl udes r evi ew t o det er m i ne thatt he di s cr et i on w as not gui ded by err oneous l egal concl us i ons . ’ ” I d.
DI S CU S S I ON
A s this C ou rt h a s co nsi st entl yheld, a def end ant m ust m eetfi ve r equi r ement s befor e he maybe gr ant ed a new t r i al on t he bas i s of new l ydi 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, ne w ly d isc o v e re d , i. e ., d isc o v e re d sin c e th e trial; (b) fac ts m u st b e all eg ed fro m w h ich t h e c o u rt m ayinf er d il igen ce o n the pa rt o f t h e [ d ef en d an t] ; (c) t he ev i den ce rel i ed o n, m ustno tbe m erely cumul at i ve ori m peac hi ng; ( d) i tm us t be mat er i al t o t he i s s ues i nvol ved; and ( e) i tm us tbe s uch, and o f su c h n a tu re , as th a t, on a n e w trial, th e n e w ly25 di s cov er ed evi dence w oul d pr obabl ypr oduce a n a c q u itt a l.
Ia n n e lli , 528 F. 2d at1292. “A l t hough t he dec i s i on t o gr antor denya mot i on fo r a n ew t r i al l i es w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of t he di s t r i ct cour t , t he movant has a ‘ heavybur den’ of pr ovi ng eac h of t hes e re qui r ement s . ” U nit ed S t ates v. C i m era , 459 F. 3d 452, 458 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. I f j us tone of the r equ ir em ent s i s not sa tisf ied , a d e f e n d a n t’s R u le 3 3 m o tio n m u st f a il. U ni t ed Stat es v . Ja sin , 2 8 0 F .3 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 5 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). C o u rts s h o u ld “exe r ci s e gr eatcaut i on i n s et t i ng as i de a v erd ic tr eac hed af t er ful l y -conduct ed pr ocee di ngs , ” and pa r t i cul ar l ys o w her e “the act i on has been tr i ed bef or e a j ur y . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Kam el , 965 F. 2d 484, 493 ( 7t h C i r. 1 9 9 2) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks o m itted).
I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded t hat K el l yhad m et hi s bur den of es t abl i s hi ng eac h of t he Ia n n e lli requi rem ents

. O n ap p ea l, the G o v ern m en t cha ll en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt’s di s pos i t i on as t o t w o of t he r equi r ement s : di l i gence and pr obabi l i ty o f ac qui t t al

. W e addr es s eac h of t he cha l l enged re q u ir e m e n ts in tu rn . I . D i l i gence
T he G over nm ent cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed t he i ncor r ectl egal s t andar d i n concl udi ng t hatK el l yhad s at i s fi ed the di l i gence pr ong of t he Ia n n e llianaly si s.26 Speci f i c a l l y , t he G overnm entar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed in f o c u sin g its d ili g e n c e in q u iryo n K e lly’ s p o st-tria l ef f o rts to br i ng J ones ’ s t es t i m onyt o t he a tt ent i on of t he C our tonce the pot ent i al t es t i m ony w as di s cover ed, as oppos ed t o focus i ng on K el l y ’s pre- t ri al effo rt s t o d i scover Jones’s t est i m on yi n the fi rs t pl ace . W e agr ee.
A s r ecogni zed a bove, t he sec o n d pr ong of t he Ia n n e lli anal y sis requi r es a def

endantt o al l ege f

act s “fr om w hi ch the c o u r t ma y i n f

e r d i l i g e n c e. ” Ia n n e lli , 5 2 8 F

. 2 d at 12 9 2

. In appl y i ng t hi s pr ong, w e have cons i s t ent l y focus ed ouri nqui r yon w h ethe r t h e e v iden ce at issu e co u ld h av e b ee n d isco v ere d b ef o re o r a t the t i m e of tr i al w i t h t he exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e di l i gence o n b e h a lf o f th e d e f

e n d a n t an d /o r h is c o u n s e l. Id

. at 1293; C i m era , 459 F. 3d at462- 63. I n Ia n n e lli i t s el f, w e af fi r m ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of t he def endant s ’ new t r i al m ot i on, as t he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence “coul d have been di s cover ed att he t i m e of t r i al ” and t he def endant s “d[i d] notal l ege a nyfac t s fr om w hi ch the courtc[oul d] excus e t hei r l ack of di l i gence . . . pr i or t o t r i a l

. ” I

a n n e lli , 528 F. 2d at1293. M or e r ece nt l y , i n U ni t ed Stat es v. C i m era , w e r ever s ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o a gr ant a n ew t r i al on t he bas i s of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence w her e the def

endant“fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h

. . . t hat[t he s uppor t i ng evi dence ] coul d nothave be en di s cover ed w i th t he exe r ci s e of r eas onabl e di l i gence befor e or at t he t i m e of t he tr i al

. ” 459 F. 3d a t 4 6 2 -6 3 ; s e e als o Go v e r n me n to f th e V i r g i n I s l a n d s v . L i ma , 7 74 F. 2d 1245, 1250 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( aff i r m i ng di s t r i ctco u rt ’s d e n ial o f d e f

e n d a n t’s m o tio n f

o r n e w trial b a se d o n n e w ly27 d i s c o v e re d e v id e n c e , f

in d in g , in tera lia , t ha tw i t ne s s e s w hose t es t i m onyform ed t he bas i s of def endant ’ s new t r i al m ot i on “coul d eas i l y have be en found i n t i m e f ortr i albyt he exe r ci s e of d ili g e n c e ” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); U ni t ed St at es v. D eRew al , 10 F. 3d 100, 104 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( s t at i ng t hat “new l ydi s cover ed e v id e n c e m u st b e e v id e n c e th a t trial c o u n se l c o u ld n o th ave dis cove r ed

w i t h due di li g ence bef or e tr i al ” (se c o n d e m p h a sis a d d e d ))

. I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded thatK el l yhad “met hi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hat he w as di l i gentw i t h r es pect t o t he new l ydisco ver ed evi dence , ” D i s t

. C t

. O p. at*11, as “K ell yw as d il igen t i n b ri n g ing Jo n es’s t esti m o n yto the C o u rt ’s at t ent i on, ” i d. at*12. I n r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtlai d o u t th e se q u en ce o f e v en ts l ea d ing u p to Jo n es’s p rosp ec ti v e testi m o n y , b eg inn in g w ith the d ate o f K ell y ’s convi ct i on and hi ghl i ght i ng onl ypos t

- t r i al event s . A l t hough t he D istri ct C o u rt f

o u n d that “[ a]t [the ] t im e[ o f h is co n v ict ion ], K el l y di d not know about J ones ’ s cont act w i t h t he gun, ” the C o u rt n e v e r a d d re ss e d w h e th e r e ith e r K e llyo r h is c o u n se l co u ld have di s cover ed the i nfor m at i on befor e t r i al w i t h t he exer ci s e of r eas onabl e di l i gence . A r e v i e w o f t h e p r e - tr i a l r e c o r d r e v e a l s a b s o l u t el y no ev iden ce

— n o r all eg ati o n

— o f p retria l dil igen ce o n K ell y ’s behal f. T he r ecor d coul d not be m or e cl ear t hatK el l ym ade no eff or t t o s peak w i t h J ones

— des pi t e s eei ng hi m anyw her e fr om one t o t w entyt i m es aft ert he arr es t

— aboutw hathe mi ghthave28 w itn e ss e d th e m o rn in g o f M a y1 , 2 0 0 4 . A s w e h e ld in Go v e r n me n to

f th e V i r g i n I s l a n d s v . L i ma , 7 7 4 F. 2d 1245 ( 3d C i r . 1985) , s uch ina cti on s i m pl ydoes notqual i fyas re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e . I n L i ma , aft er t he defe ndant w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d forbur gl ar y , as s aul t , and pos s es s ion of a fi r earm , he fi l ed a m o tio n f o r n e w trial b a se d o n th e a f f id a v its o f

th re e n e w ly di s cover ed w i t nes s es . T w o of t he w it n es s es , R i ver a and Sanchez , s t at ed i n t hei raff ida vi t s t hat , al t hough t heyw er e out on R i ver a’ s por ch t he ni ghtof t he al l eged i n ci dent , nei t her per s on s aw t he def

endanten te rorexi tt he vi ct i m ’ s hous e. A ccor di ng t o heraff

i davi t , R i ver a l i ved di r ect l yacr os s t he s t r eet f ro m th e v ic tim

. I n addr es s i ng t he di l i gence pr ong of t he Ia n n e lli t es tand u lt im atelyfin d ing that ith ad n o t bee n m et, the d istri ct co u rt s t at ed:
W i t h ev en a m o d erat e am ou nt of di l i gen ce t hese w i t nes s es and thei rt es t i m onycoul d have be en d isco v era b le prior to tri al. [T h e ] w itne sses are per s ons w el l know n t o defe ndant ( J os e) and w ho k n o w h im w ell

. T h e loca ti o n o f H ipo li ta R ivera ’s r e sid e n c e c o u ld n o t p o ss ib lyb e a se c re t to defe ndant

. C om m on prudence w oul d have di ct at ed t hat she be i nt er vi ew ed as a nei ghbor l i kel y t o t hr ow l i ghton t he mat t er . T hi s coul d and29 s h o u ld ha ve bee n done i m m edi at el yaft ert he a rre st o f d e f e n d a n t.
I d. a t 1 2 4 9 (q u o tin g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ).
O n a p p e a l, Ju d g e B e c k e r a g re e d w ith th e d istric t co u rt, concl udi ng eas i l yt hatt he defe ndant had notm ethi s bur den of es t abl i s hi ng r eas onabl e pr etr i al di l i gence as t o t he t es t i m onyof R iv e ra a n d S a n c h e z :
T he pr o f f e r e d t e s t i mon ya l s o ru n s a f o u l o f t he “di l i gence ” pr on g of Ia n n e llibeca us e Sanche z and R i ver a w er e fr i ends of [t he defenda nt ] , one of w hom r es i ded di r ect l yacr os s t he str eetfr om t he l ocat i on of t he i nci dent

. I tw oul d s eem t hatt hey coul d e a s i l y h a v e b e e n f o u n d i n t i me f

o r t r i a l by th e e x e rc is e o f

d ilig e n c e . I d. a t 1 2 5 0

. T he fa ct s of L i ma ar e ana l ogous t o the fa ct s of t hi s cas e. Fi r s t , w hetherw e lab el K el l yand J ones as “fr i ends ” or “ac quai nt ance s , ” i ti s undi s put ed t hat ( 1) t he t w o m en knew eac h ot h e r ; ( 2 ) t h e y wer e s i t t i n g n e x t t o e a c h o t h e r t h e n i ght of K el l y ’ s ar r es t ; and ( 3) t heys aw eac h ot her at lea s tonce a ft er K el l y ’ s ar r es tand bef

or e hi s convi ct i on. W e can a l s o i nfert hat J ones ’ s hom e addr es s w as no s ecr ett o K el l y , as J ones l i ved on t he v erysam e block as K el l y ’s gir l fri end of eight y ears (w ith w hom J ones w as “bes t fr i ends ”)

. I n l i ght of t hes e fa ct s , w e s ee30 no rea so n w hyJ ones coul d notand s houl d nothave be en

“ in te rv ie w e d a s a [ w itn e s s ] l ik e ly to th ro w lig h t o n th e m a tte r,” L i ma , at 12 4 9 , p ri o r t o K ell y ’s t ri al, o r at th e v erylat est, b ef o re hi s convi ct i on; and K el l ypr ovi des us w i t h none. K el l ym akes no eff or tt o di s t i ngui s h L i ma and does not even acknow l edge the c a se a s p re c e d e n t in h is b rie f o n a p p e a l.
Faced w i th J on es’s u n d ispu ted testi m o n ythat K ell ynever once s poke t o hi m about w h at happened atC afé B r eez es on M ay1, 2004, K el l ydoes notarg u e that he i n fac texer ci s ed pr etr i al di l i gence i n r el at i on t o J ones ’ s pot ent i al t es t i m ony , nor d o es h e co n tend that h e co u ld n o t hav e interv iew ed Jo n es b ef o re hi s t r i al began. I ns t ead, K el l ys eeks t o excus e hi s l ack of p retr i al di l i gence byar gui ng— as he di d befor e the D i s t r i ct C o u rt— th a t, p rio r to trial, h e h a d n o re a so n to b e liev e (1 ) th a t it w as J ones w ho pos s es s ed and thr ew t he gun, and/ or( 2) t hat J ones w oul d have a cknow l edged pos s essi ng t he gun. (A p p e llee ’ s B r. 1 4 -1 5 ; 2 0 .) E ss e n tially , K e llya rg u e s th a t, b e c a u se h e d id n o t k n o w w h a t Jo n e s w o u ld sa yin re sp o n s e to bei ng ques t i oned, K el l y had no dut y t o ques t i on him

. T hough t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt appea r s t o have a cce pt ed thi s narr ow for m ul at i on of a de fenda nt ’ s dut yt o exer ci s e pr etr i al di l i gence , w e c a n n o t.
K el l y ’ s cl ai m t hathe “ha d no r eas on t o know t hati tw as Jo n e s w h o th re w th e g u n a n d

. . . th a t J o n e s w a s w ill in g to a c k n o w led g e th is f

a c t” ( A p p e llee ’s B r. 2 0 ) m iss e s th e p o in t. T hough K el l ym ayhave ha d n o r eas on t o know t he exa ctC f

. U ni t ed Stat es v. Schaf

f er , 2 1 4 F

. 3 d 135 9, 1 3 6 2 ( D. C. 10 C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), vacat ed as m oot , 2 4 0 F

. 3 d 3 5 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ [ A] bel i ef i n t he futi li ty of [s ubpoenai ng a pot ent i al w i t nes s or s eeki ng a cont i nuance t o pr ocur e hi s t es t i m ony ] w i l l nots at i s fy t he nee d fora conc r et e att empt ei t her t o compel t he pr oduct i on of r el evantevi dence ort o s eek s om e ac comm o dat i on fr om t he t r i al cour t tha t w oul d pr es er ve the def endant ’ s r i ghtt o pr es ent evi dence t hatw as cr i t i cal t o hi s cas e. W hat ev er t he mi ni m um r equi r ement of di l i gence , i tcannotbe a pur el ypr i vat e eva l uat i on of t he ava il ab il it y of t he t es t i m onyort he l i kel i hood of r el i ef (c o n tin u e d ...) 31 su b sta n c e o f Jo n e s’s p o ten tial t e stim o n y , h e h a d e v e ryre a so n to ques t i on J ones aboutt he gun— w hi ch K el l ycl ai m ed w as not hi s

— and aboutw h at h e m ayhave w i t nes s ed the morni ng of K el l y ’ s ar r es t

. A s t he G overnm ent poi nt s out i n i t s br i ef, J ones m a yh a v e b e e n a b le to p ro v id e K e lly w it h e v id e n c e to c o rr o b o ra t e h i s th e o ry th a t “ s o m e o n e th re w th e g u n a t [ h im ].” See sup ra not e 3. K el l y coul d have a s ked J ones i f he s aw w ho t hr ew t he gun athi m orfr om w hatdi r ect i on i t w as thr ow n; he coul d h av e ask ed J ones i f he s aw s om eone w i t h a gun ea r l i er th a t n ig h t o r h e a rd p e o p le talk in g a b o u t th e in c id e n t af ter h is arr es t

. A nd w hi l e ther e i s al w ay s t he poss i bi l i t yt hatJ ones w o u ld h a v e b e e n u n a b le— o r u n w ill in g

— to p ro v id e K e llyw ith t h e a n s w e r s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , w e w i l l n e v e rk n o w b e c a use Kel l y nev eras ked them . A n yp o ten tial or a n ticip a ted f u til ityin d o in g so

— w ith o u t m o re

— d o e s n o t ex c u se K e llyf ro m h is d u ty to e x e rc ise re a so n a b le d ili g e n c e b e f o re trial. 10(

. . . cont i nued) 10 from the court

. Such a s t andar d w oul d s er i ous l yi m pai rt he i m por t antgoal of fi nal i t yt hatt he di l i gence r equi r ement s er ves . ”) T he G ov ernm ent ci t es se v e ra l c a se s f ro m o u r sis ter c irc u its 11 in su p p o rt o f

its p o sitio n o n a p p e a l. A s n o n e a r e n e c e ss a ryto o u r d is p o s itio n , w e d o n o t d is c u s s th e m h e re . 32 U nabl e t o cit e anypr ece dentfr om t hi s C i r cui t , orfr om anyof ours i s t er ci r cui t s , i n s uppor t of hi s pos i t i on, K el l yr el i es 11 h e a v ilyo n tw o c a se s f

ro m d istric t co u rts in o u r c irc u it— U ni t ed St at es v. C ar m i chael , 2 69 F. Supp. 2d 588 ( D

. N

. J

. 2003) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor al es , N o . 90- 441- 2, 1991 W L 276022 ( E

. D

. Pa

. Dec

. 1 8 , 1 9 9 1 )

— “ o n l yt o d e mon s t r a t e t h a twhen confr ont ed w i t h s i m i l ar c ir cumst ance s , ot hercour t s have rea so n ab lyem p loy ed the sam e ap p roa ch as d id the d istri ct co u rt her e. ” ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . 15 n 8. ) W hi l e w e expr es s no opi ni on as t o the propri et yof the dis t ri ctcou rt s’ de c ision s i n these cases , w e d isc u ss th e m h e re , a s th e ya re d istin g u ish a b le o n th e ir f a c ts a n d th u s u ltim a te ly u n a v a ilin g . In C ar m i chael , a f

t e ra t r i a l f

o rg u n p o s s e s s i o n , t he defe ndantpr es ent ed the af fi davi tof a w i t nes s w ho admi t t ed that th e g u n in q u e stio n b e lo n g e d to h im . U p o n re c e iv in g th is aff i davi t and hear i ng l i ve t es t i m ony , t he di s t r i ct co u rt g r ant ed defe ndant ’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al , fi ndi ng t hat“the def endant had no w ayof know i ng at t he t i m e of t r i al t hat M r . H ar vey [, t heW e a ssu m e, as is i m p li ed thro u g h o u t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s 12 opi ni on, t hatt he def

endanthad pr etr i al acc es s t o H ar vey ’ s gr and ju ry te s tim o n y . 33 w itn e ss ,] w a s th e o w n e r o f th e g u n , o r a t le a s t th a t h e w o u ld adm itt o bei ng t he ow ner . ” I d. a t 5 9 7 . In re a c h in g th is concl us i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tr el i ed on the fa ctt hatH ar veyhad tes tifie d b e f

o re a f e d e ra l g ra n d ju ryp rio r to th e d e f e n d a n t’s tria l. D ur i ng hi s s w or n t es t i m ony , H arv ey cl ai m ed thathe di d not know t o w hom t he gun bel onged and deni ed bei ng on t he por ch w h e re th e g u n w a s f

o u n d

. Id

. at59 2

. T h e d is t r i ctcour tt hus concl uded that“[n] ot hi ng i n M r . H ar vey ’ s gr and j ur yt es t i m ony coul d have a l er t ed the defe ndant t o t he pr os pect t hatM r . H ar vey c o u ld b e a h e lp f

u l w itn e s s if

c a lle d a t tr ia l.” I

d. a t 5 9 7

. 12
H er e, unl i ke i n C a rm ich a e l, K e llyh a d n o re a so n to bel i eve thatJ ones w oul d noth a v e b e e n a h e lp f u l w itn e ss if cal l ed att r i al

. J ones w as never ques t i oned befor e t r i al aboutt he gun oraboutw hathe w i t nes s ed the ni ghtof K el l y ’ s arr es t , he neveraff

i r m at i vel ydeni ed know le dge of the ci r cumst ance s su rrou n d ing that n igh t; an d h e c ertainlyd id n o t pro v ide s w o rn t es t i m onyt o anycour tunt i l aft er K el l y ’ s convi ct i on. H ad J ones been que s t i oned pr etr i al and had he deni ed know l edge of t he g u n , w e w o u ld b e p re se n ted w ith a d if f e re n t sc e n a r io . I t is un dis pu t ed thatJones w as not q uest i on ed, and t hu s C ar m i chael is c le a rl yd is tin g u is h a b le

.34 U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor al es , N o. 90- 441- 2, 1991 W L 276022 ( E

. D

. Pa. D ec. 18, 1991)

— t he onl ycas e ci t ed by t he D i stri ctC ou rt in supp ortof it s conclusi on

— i s al so d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e o n t h i s i s s u e . I n Mor al es , t he def endantw as convi ct ed by a j ur yforcons pi r acyt o pos s es s coca i ne w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e and pos s es s i on of coca i ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e.
A tt r i al , a gov ernmentw i t nes s t es t i fi ed t o s eei ng t he defe ndantent ert he home of a co- defe ndantw hi l e ca r r y i ng a r ed and bl ack bag t hat w as l at erfound t o cont ai n coca i ne. A ft ert he defe ndantw as convi ct ed, he moved fora new tr i al bas ed on a new l ydi s cover ed w i t nes s , w ho t es t i fi ed ata pos t

- t r i al ev i d ent i aryhear i ng t hats he had obs er ved the def endantcarr y i ng o n lyh is ch il d an d n o t a ba g as h e e n tered the c o -de fe n d an t’ s hom e on t he day i n ques t i on. I n addr es s i ng t he di l i gence pr ong of t he Ia n n e lli anal y s i s , t he di s t r i ct cour ts peci fi cal l yfound t hat “ther e w as no evi dence pr es ent ed at t he evi dent i ary hear i ng t hat def endant

. . . h a d a n y re a so n to k n o w M s. G o n z a lez [ , the n e w ly di s cover ed w i t nes s , ] had w i t nes s ed defe ndant ent er i ng t he co- defe ndant ’ s hom e. ” I d. at*1 (em ph asi s i n ori ginal ). T hu s, t he di s t r ict cour tconcl uded that“the del ayi n M s . G onzal ez co m i ng for w ar d cannotbe att r i but ed t o a l ack of di l i gence on behal f of the def

endant

. ” I

d.
I n t hi s cas e, as r ecogni zed a bove, K el l yhad eve r y r eas on t o kn o w thatJ ones w as a pot ent i al w i t nes s i n hi s cas e. A gai n, i ti s undi s put ed that , notonl yw as J ones pr es ent at C afé B r eez es t he ni ghtof K el l y ’ s ar r es t , buthe w as s i t t i ng nextt o K el l yw hen35 t he arr es toccurr ed. K el l ycr i ti ci zes t he G overnm entfor “i gnor [i ng] t he factt hatJ ones s t at ed thathe i nt ent i onal l ykept h i s i n v o l v e me n ts e c r e t b e c a u s e h e d i d n o twa n tt o b e c o me i nvol ved, ” appa r ent l ybel i evi ng t hatcons i der at i on of t hi s fac t w o u ld w eigh in his fa v o r. (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 1 7

. ) See a l so D ist. C t. O p . at * 1 1

. It d o e s n o t. W h a t K e llyh im se lf ig n o re s in m a k in g su c h a sta tem e n t is th a t th e d u tyto c o n d u c t re a so n a b le di l igen ce befor e oratt he t i m e of tr i al l i es w i t h t he def endant a n d h is c o u n se l. T h e f a c t th a t Jones d id n o t v o lu n tee r h is t es t i m onyt o K el l yhas no b ea ri ng on t he ques t i on of w hether K el l yt ook aff

i r m at i ve s t eps t o di s covert hatt es t i m onyi n t he f i r s t i n s t a n c e . S i t t i n g o n o n e ’ s h a n d s a n d wa i t i n g f o r a k n o wn ey ew itn ess to co m e f o rw ard w ith p o tential lyex c u lpato ry inf o rm ati o n (or pot ent i al l yi ncul patoryinf o rm ati o n fro m Jo n es’s per s pect i ve) cannot be consi d ere d

— b y any defi ni t i on— r eas onabl e di l i gence. W er e w e t o s anct i on t he g ran ti n g o f a n ew tr ial u n d er su ch circu m stan ce s , I a n n e lli ’s dil i gen ce requi rem ent w ou l d q uickl ybe rend ered m eaningl ess.
C o n sid e rin g a ll o f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th is cas e, t he fa ctt hatK el l ydi d noteven a t t empt t o ques t i on Jo n e s— o r h a v e Jo n e s q u e stio n e d

— p rio r to h is tria l is b o th s h o c k i n g a n d i n e x c u s a b l e . I ti s t h u s wi t h l i t t l e h e s i t a t i o n t h a twe concl u d e that h e has fai l ed t o s at i s fyt he s econd pr ong of t he Ia n n e llianal y s i s . B eca us e i ti s undi s put ed thatK el ly m ade no a ttem p t to p ro c u re Jo n e s’s tes tim o n y p rio r t o h is co n v ictio n , h is m o tio n f o r a n e w tr ia l s h o u ld h a v e b e e n d e n ie d

.36 A ccor di ngly , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der gr ant i ng hi s m ot i on.
I I . P robabi l i t y of

A cqui t t al
T h e G o v ern m en t al so ch all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s r es ol ut i on of t he fi fth p ron g of t he Ia n n e llianal y s i s : t he r equi r ement t hat , “on a new t r i al , t he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence w o u ld pr obabl ypr oduce a n acqui t t al

. ” Ia n n e lli , 528 F. 2d at 1292. B eca us e w e have al r eadydet er m i ned thatK el l ydi d not m eethi s “hea vybur den” of es t abl i s hi ng Ia n n e lli ’ s di l i gence r equi r ement , w e nee d notr eac h t hi s s econd i s s ue as a means of ju s tif y in g o u r r e v e rs a l o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. See J a sin , 2 8 0 F .3 d a t 3 6 5 . H o w e v e r , a s it a p p e a rs th a t Ia n n e lli ’s f if th p ro n g h a s c a u se d so m e c o n f u sio n in o u r d istric t co u rts, w e w ill di s cus s i t s appl i cat i on her e, s o as t o pr ovi de cl ar i t yt o t hi s ar ea o f th e la w . B efor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , t he G o v ernmentar gued that K el l y ’s new evi dence w oul d not“pr obabl ypr oduce a n acqui t t al , ” as J ones ’ s t es t i m onyw as “s i m pl yt oo fant as t i c t o be ac co rde d m uch evi dent i aryw ei ght

. ” D i s t

. C t

. O p. at*12 ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. T he G overnm entur ged the D ist r ic t C o u rt to c o n c lu d e th a t th e tes tim o n yw a s n o t cr e d ib le and t hat , acc or di ngl y , K el l ycoul d nots at i s fy t he fi ft h pr ong of Ia n n e lli

. I n s uppor t of i t s ar gum ent , t he G overnm enti dent i fi ed s ever al i nco n sist enci es i n t he t es t i m onyof J ones , G ant , and C ephas ; cr i t i ci zed J ones ’ s t es t i m onyforconveni ent l yabs ol vi ng37 bot h K el l yand J ones o f an ycr i m i nal l i abi l i t y ; and ar gued that J o n e s ’ s r e l a t i on s hi p wi t h b o t h Ke l l ya n d Ce p h a s g a v e h i m a s t r ong m ot i ve t o l i e on beha l f of hi s fr i ends

. T he G overnm ent also remi nded the C our tt hatJ ones admi t t ed t o bei ng very i nt oxi cat ed t he ni ghtof K el l y ’ s arr es tand as s er t ed that , at a new t r i al , J ones ’ s t es t i m onyw oul d be contr adi ct ed byt he t es t i m ony o f O f f ic e rs S te w a rt , M ile s , a n d C la rk

. I n i t s A ugus t29, 2006 M emora n d um O pi ni on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed the G overnm ent ’ s p os i t i on and

“ d e c lin e [ d ] to m a k e . . . a c re d ib ili tyd e te rm in a tio n a t th is j unctur e. ” D i s t

. C t

. O p. at*12. T he C our tdecl ar ed, att he o u ts e t o f its d isc u ss io n , tha t “J o n e s’s p ro sp e c tiv e tes tim o n y , if b e liev e d , w o u ld p ro b a b lyp r o d u c e a n a c q u itt a l, an d th e ju ryis th e a p p ro p ri a te f

a c t- f in d e r.” D is t. C t. O p . a t * 1 2

. I n expl ai ni ng w hyi tw oul d r efr ai n fro m m aki ng a cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s t i ngui s hed se v e ra l c a s e s c ited b yth e G o v e rn m e n t an d u lti m a telyc h o se to adopt the r eas oni ng empl oy ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. Mor al es , N o. 90- 441- 2, 1991 W L 276022 ( E

. D

. Pa. D ec. 1 8 , 1991)

. I n t hat cas e, a lthough t he di s t r i ctcour tadmi t t ed t o fi ndi ng “many in c o n sis ten c ie s ” in th e p ro p o se d tes tim o n yo f a n e w ly di s cover ed wi tn e s s , i tnonethel es s concl uded thatt he “de fenda nt is en ti tl ed to h av e a jury ev alua te the c red ibil ityo f [ the w itn ess]. If a ju ryf in d s h e r te stim o n yto b e c re d ib le, th e ju rym a yw e ll have a r eas onabl e doubt[as t o t he def endant ’ s gui l t ]

. ” I

d. at*2.38 Aft e ra n n o u n c i n g t h a ti twou l d a d o p t“ t h e Mor al es appr oach, ” D i s t

. C t

. O p. at*14, t he D i s t r i ctC our tunderw entt he foll ow i ng analy si s:
A l t hough t he C our th as s om e r es er vat i ons about Jo n e s’s p ro p o se d tes ti m o n y

— n o tab ly , itn ice ly a b so lv e s b o th K e lly a n d Jo n e s o f c rim in a l li a b ili ty a n d it su rf

a c e d a t a c o n v e n ie n t ti m e

— th e C o u rt, out o f an abunda nce of caut i on, concl udes t hat K el l yi s ent i t l ed t o have a j ur yeval u ate the cr edi bi l i t yof J ones . T he C our tfur t herconcl udes th a t a j ur

y is l i kel y t o f i nd Jones’s pr os

pect i ve t e s t i mon y c r e d i bl e f

o r, in tera lia , t he fol l ow i ng rea so n s: Firstit is n o t log ical fo r Jon es to p erjure h im se lf f o r th e b o y f

rie n d (K e ll y) o f

o n e o f h is fr i ends ( C ephas )

. Second, J ones had a str ong m o tiv e n o t to c o m e f o rw a r d a n d to a v o id di s cus s i ng t he i nci dentunt i l G antr epor t ed that K el l yhad bee n convi ct ed. T hi r d, J ones can not b e n e f i tb y fa l s e l yh e l p i n g Ke l l y . F o u r t h , s o me ti m e a fter the arrest b u t w h il e sti ll at t h e b ar, K e lly sta te d “ s o m e o n e th re w th e g u n a t [ h im ],” w h i c h c o rr o b o r a t e s J o n e s ’ s p r o s p e c t i v e t e s t i m o n y. I d. ( emphasi s added; s econd al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) (i n t ernal foot not e omi t t ed)

. T hus , al t hough t he C our texpl i ci t l ydecl i ned to m ak e a “c red ibil ityd ete rm in ati o n , ” itn o n ethe less ap p ea rs f ro m th is p a ss a g e th a t itd id u n d e rg o a typ e o f c re d ib ili ty a s s e s s m e n t.See a l so A p p e lle e’s B r. at 22 (“C learly , if a d istri ct co u rt 13 fi nds new l ydi s cover ed t es t i m oni al evi dence notcr edi bl e, t hen itw o u ld n o t be a n ab u se o f d iscreti o n to d en ya n ew tr ial

. ”). 39 In li g h t of the fo reg o ing , the C o u rt co n clud ed : “If a jury f in d s J o n e s’s tes tim o n yto b e c re d ib le .

. . th e ju ryis lik e lyto have a r eas onabl e doubt as t o w hether K el l y pos s es s ed t he gun ati ssue duri ng t he earl yho urs of M ay 1, 20 04 atC afé B reezes. T hus , K el l y has es t abl i s hed t hat t he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence i s l i kel yt o pr oduce a n acqui t t al

. ” I d. (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted).
O n ap p ea l, the G o v ern m en t arg u es t h at t h e D istri ct C o u rt e rre d a s a m a tter o f

law in re f

u sin g to m a k e a c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i on i n r egar d to Jo n es ’ s t es t i m ony , l eavi ng s uch a d e te rm in a tio n to th e ju ry a t a n e w tr ia l. ( A p p e l la n t’ s B r. 3 0 .) A ccor di ng t o t he G overnm ent , “[h] ad the di s t r i ct cour t m ade a cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng, t he di s t r i ct cour ts houl d have f ound t hatt he J o n e s te s tim o n y w a s e n title d to littl e , if a n y , p ro b a tiv e w e ig h t.” (Id

. at 30 -31

. )
K el l y r es ponds t hat , al t hough he agr ees “i n t he cont extof new l ydi s covery[s i c] evi dence m ot i ons , i ti s fort he di s t r i ct cour t t o a s s e s s t h e c r e d i b i l i t yo f t h e e v i d e n c e , ” t h i s d o e s n ot 13
m ean thata di s t r i ctcour t m u st fi nd t he evi dence t o be “ i n f act cr edi bl e. ” ( A ppel l ee’ s B r . 23. ) I n hi s vi ew , “unl es s t he di s t r i ct cour tdi s cr edi t s t he new t es t i m ony , t he s t andar d i t s el f and comm on s ens e s ugges tt hatt he di s t r i ct cour ts houl d do not hi ng40 m o re than ass es s w hethera j ur ypr obabl yw oul d r eac h a di ffe r entr es ul tupon hear i ng t he t es t i m ony . ” (I d. a t 2 2 .) T o th is end, K el l yas s er t s t hatt he D i str ict C our t“di d i n fac tm ake a c r e d i b i l i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c tt o J o n e s ’ [ s i c ] t e s t i m o n y” ( i d. ), as itsp ec ifi ca ll yfo u n d that “‘a jury is li k ely to fi n d Jo n es’s p r o s p e c t i v e t e s t i mon y c r e d i b l e’ ” ( id. ( quot i ng D i s t

. C t

. O p. at * 1 4 )). A c c o rd in g to K e ll y, a lth o u g h th e G o v e rn m e n t “g o e s to gr eatl engths t o ar gue t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on fo r no t discred it ing Jo n es’ [ sic] t esti m o n y [, t]he d istri ct co u rt ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs cannotbe di s turbed. ” (I d. 2 3

. )
In l i gh tof the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s op i nion and t he p art i es’ argum ents , t w o is sues r equ i re our at t enti on , bo t h o f w hich ar i se in th e c o n text o f a d istri ct co u rt ’s i n q u iryinto w h ethe r a d e f e n d a n t’s 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 ly p rod u ce an ac q u ittal ” a t a ne w tr ial : ( 1 ) w h ethe r a d istri ct co u rt i s r equi r ed t o m ake a det er m i nat i on as t o t he cr edi b il ityof t he p ro f f e re d e v id e n c e ; a n d (2 ) i f so , h o w is su c h a d e ter m in a tio n to be made? W e addr es s eac h of t hes e i s s ues i n tur n.
F irst, to b e c lea r, “[ i]t is th e jo b o f th e d istric t co u rt, ei t heron aff

i davi t s or aft er an evi dent i aryhear i ng . . . t o deci de w hethert he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence i s cr edi bl e, an d , if s o, w hetheri tw oul d pr obabl ypr oduce a n acqui t t al i f a ne w t r i al w er e hel d. ” U

ni t ed St at es v. G r ey Bear , 1 1 6 F .3 d 3 4 9 , 3 5 0 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. W o o lfo lk , 197 F. 3d 900, 905 ( 7t h C i r . 1999) ( “The purpos e of t h e e v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g was f o rt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tt o a s s e s s t he41 c re d ib ili tyo f

th e n e w w itn e ss a n d to d e ter m in e th e m a ter iality o f h e r te stim o n y .”). W h ile it a p p e a rs th a t a ll o f th e c irc u its to ad d ress th is i ssu e a re in a g ree m en t, w e f ind the T en th C ir cu it ’s o pi ni on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. McC ul l ough , 4 5 7 F. 3d 1150 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), t o b e p a rt ic u la rl yin s tr u c tiv e . I n McC ul l ough , fourm ont hs aft er the defendantw as convi ct ed bya j ur yon var i ous drug- and w eapons - r el at ed char ges , he s enta l et t ert o t he di s t r i ctcourt s t at i ng t hathe had di s cover ed evi dence t hatfi ve of t he G overnm ent ’ s cooper at i ng w itn e ss e s h a d c o n sp ire d to p ro v id e f a lse tes tim o n ya g a in st h im a n d h is c o -d e f

e n d a n t a t tr ia l. I

d. at1165- 66. T he defenda nt at t ache d t o hi s l et t er t he w r i t t en s t at ement s of ni ne i nm at es fr om h is c o rr e c tio n a l f

a c ility. I

d. a t 1 1 6 6 . T h e se sta tem e n ts in d ic a te d , in tera lia , t hatt he i nm at es had overhear d t he fi ve c o o p e ra tin g w itn e ss e s, w h o w e re a lso in m a tes , c o n sp irin g to p rov ide f

alse testi m o n yat t ria l in o rde r t o rec eive d o w n w ard d ep artur es i n t hei rs ent ence s . T he s t at ement s al s o al l eged that t he coope r at i ng w i t nes s es had off er ed t o s el l i nfor m at i on about th e d e f e n d a n t’s c a se to o th e r in m a tes , so th a t th e yto o c o u ld b ec o m e g o v ern m en t coo p era tors eli g ible fo r do w n w a rd d e p a rt u re s . I

d. T he def

endant lat er fil ed a f

or m al R ul e 33 m ot i on t hr ough co u n sel bas ed on the i nm at es ’ w r i t t en s ta te m e n ts

. I

d.
A f te r a m u lti -d a ye v id e n tiary he a rin g , d u rin g w h ich six of t he ni ne i nm at es and al l fi ve o f the cooper at i ng w i t nes s es p ro v id e d liv e te s tim o n y , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th e d e f e n d a n t’ s42 m o tio n . I

d. I n d o i n g s o , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o t e d t h a t i t di d not f in d th e in m a tes ’ te stim o n yto b e w o rth yo f b e lief a n d se t f o rth s ever al r eas ons w hy t he t es t i m ony w as notcr edi bl e. T he di s t r i ct cour tul t i m at el y found t hat , al t hough t he def endanthad s at i s fi ed t he fir stfou r pr on gs of the T enth C i rcui t ’s Ia n n e llie q u iv a len t, he coul d n o t sa ti s fyt he fi ft h pr ong of t he t es t

. T hough t he d istric t co u rt a g re e d th a t th e n e w e v id e n c e , “ if b e liev e d , w o u ld pr obabl ypr oduce a n acqui t t al , ” i t expr es s l y found t hat t he new evi d ence w as notcr edi bl e and de ni ed the def endant ’ s m ot i on. I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)

. O n appea l , t he def endant a rg u e d th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in m a k in g a c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i on. A ccor di ng t o t he def endant , a j ur y s houl d have m a d e th e c re d ib ility ju d g m e n t, n o t th e ju d g e . I d. a t 1 1 6 7

. T h e T en th C ir cu itso u n d lyrejected the d ef en d an t’ s ar gum ent , s t at i ng: [The de fenda nt ] eff

ect i vel y ar gues , w i t ho u t a ny ci t at i on t o s uppor t i ng author i t y , t hatt he di s t r i ct cour tw as r equi r ed t o accep t hi s pr offe r ed e v i d e n c e a s t ru e , o r d e r a n e w t r i a l , a n d a l l o w a new j ur yt o det er m i ne w hethert he pr offe r ed evi dence w as cr edi bl e. N ei t her the cas e l aw fr om t hi s ci r cui t , nor for t hat m at t er t he cas e l aw fr om anyot her ci r cui t , s uppor t s s uch a pos i t i on. T o t he cont r ary , ourfi ve- pr onged t es t

. . . cl ear l yi m pl i es th a t th e d istric t co u rt is to se rv e a s a g a tek e e p e r to a new t r i al , deci di ng i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance w hether43 th e d e f e n d a n t’s p ro f

f e re d “ n e w e v id e n c e ” is c re d ib le

. I d. T h e c o u rt a d d e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s p o sitio n w a s “ p a ten tly a b su rd ,” a s “ it w o u ld a llo w a d e f e n d a n t to a u to m a tica llyo b tain a new t r i al , an d t her ebyunder m i ne the t i m e and r es our ces devot ed t o t he i ni t i al t r i al , s i m pl ybym anufa ctur i ng s om e type of ‘ new l ydi s cover ed evi dence , ’ no m at t er how i ncr edi bl e s uch new evi dence m i ghtbe. ” I d. at1167- 68.
T he def endant ’ s pos i t i on i n McC ol l ough appea r s t o be si m i l ar t o the p o sitio n taken b yt he D i stri ctC ou rti n thi s case and byt he di s t r i ctcour ti n Mor al es . B o th c o u r ts re f u se d to m ak e a fin d ing o f fa ct a s to the cre d ibil ityo f th e e v iden ce b ef o re t hem, eac h bel i evi ng t hat a defe ndant i s ent i t l ed t o h av e a jury e v a lu a te th e c re d ib ili ty o f h is ne w ly d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e . B u t, as McC ol l ough m akes cl ear, “ the dis t ri ctcou rti s t o serve as a gat ekee per t o a new t r i al , deci di ng i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance w hether t he def endant ’ s pr offe r ed ‘ new evi dence ’ i s cr edi bl e. ” I d. at 1 1 6 7 . A d istric t co u rt th a t f a ils to e x e rc ise its d isc re tio n in th is r egar d, abus es t hat di s cr et i on and i s t hus s ubj ectt o r ever s al on a p p e a l.
H a v in g e sta b lis h e d th a t a d istric t co u rt is re q u ire d to m ake a cr edi bi l it y d et er m i nat i on as par tof i t s pr obabi l i t y - ofacqui t t al i nqui r y , w e nextaddr es s t he prope rs t andar d for m aki ng s uch a de t er m i nat i on. K el l y su g g es t s t hata di s t r i ct cour t ’ s focus s houl d be on w hethera j ur ypr obabl yw oul d r eac hT h e E igh th C ir cu it rec o g n ized , as d o w e, th at t h is st an d ard 14 m os tl i kel yes t abl i s hes a di s t i nct i on w i t hout a di ffe r ence , i n t hat “i f a di s t r i c t c ou r t do e s no t be l i e ve a w i t ne s s , i t s e e ms m ost u n lik e lyth a t th e sa m e c o u rt w o u ld f in d th e w itn e ss su f

f icie n tly per s uas i ve t o enabl e t he courtt o s ayt hatt he w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m ony w oul d pr obabl ypr oduce a n acqui t t al ata new t r i al

. ” G r ey Bear , 116 F. 3d at 3 5 1

. A ccor di ngl y , a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s t at ement t hat n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e “ is n o t c re d ib le,” f o r e x a m p le, is per fec t l yacc ept abl e as l ong as t he cour t s et s for t h i t s r eas oni ng.

44 a d i f f e r e n tr e s u l t u p o n h e a r i n g t h e n e w e v i d e n c e . We a g r e e . As t he Ei ght h C i r cui ts t at ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. G r ey Bear , “[t ] he r eal ques t i on w e s uppos e, i s notw hethert he di s t r i ctj udge b eli eved [t he pr offe r ed t es t i m ony ] , buthow l i kel yt he di s t r i ct ju d g e th o u g h t a ju ry a t a s e c o n d tr ia l w o u ld b e t o b e lie v e it.” 14 116 F. 3d at 350. T o m ake a det er m i nat i on undert hi s s t andar d, t he di s t r i ctcour tca n n o t v i ew t he pr offe r ed t es t i m onyi n a vacuum; i tm us tw ei gh t he t es t i m onyagai ns t all of t he other evi dence i n t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he evi dence al r eadyw ei ghed a n d c o n s id e re d b yth e ju r y in th e d e f e n d a n t’ s f

ir s t tr ia l. See U n itedS ta tes v . W

o o lfo lk , 197 F. 3d 900 (7th C i r . 1999) ( “The ju d g e [ ,] in d e ter m in in g c re d ib ili ty , . . . m u st lo o k to a ll as p e c ts of t he w i t nes s i ncl udi ng not onl yhert es t i m onybutt he evi dence p re s e n te d a t tr ia l.” ).
In th is c a se , ev e n th o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt e x p licitly d ec li n ed t o “make .

. . a cr edi bi l i t ydet er m i nat i on, ” bel i evi ngA lth o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt in th is c a se p u rp o rte d to a p p ly 15 t he “ Mor al es appr oach, ” i tappea r s t o u s that, i n actual i t y , t he C our tfol l ow ed t he appr oach t aken by t he E i ght C i r cui ti n G r ey B ear . I n Mor al es , t he di s t r i ct cour tdi d nots etfor t h anyr eas ons w hya j ur yw oul d l i kel yfi nd t he def endant ’ s new l ydi s cover ed e v id e n c e to b e c re d ib le

. For exampl e, J ones t es t i fi ed t hatj us tbefor e the uni for m ed 16 p o li ce o ff

icers en tered C af

é B ree ze s, all o f th e b ar se ats w ere

(c o n tin u e d ...) 45 t hat “the j ur y i s t he appr opr i at e fact

- fi nder , ” D i s t

. C t

. O p. at*12, t he C our tnonet hel es s concl uded that“a j ur yi s l i kel yt o fi nd J ones ’ s pr os pect i ve t es t i m onycr edi ble” an d s etfor t h four r eas ons i tt houghtt hi s w as s o. T hus , i t appea r s t hatt he D i s t r i ct 15 C o u rt m a yh a v e m a d e a c re d ib il it yd e ter m in a tio n a f ter a ll. T hough w e as s um e t hat t hi s det er m i nat i on t ook i nt o acc ount , at the v eryleast, the o th e r te s ti m o n yp rese n ted a t th e C o u rt ’s J une 8, 2006 evi dent i ary hear i ng, w e cannotbe ce r t ai n t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw ei ghed J ones ’ s t es t i m ony agai ns t t he t es t i m ony p re se n ted a t K e lly ’s f

irst tr ia l. A s th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ts o u t, Jones ’ s t es t i m onyi s contr adi ct ed atvar i ous poi nt s byt he test i m on y of, am on g ot hers, O ffi cer S t ew art

. F or i nst an c e , it w oul d s eem t hatone coul d not bel i eve J ones ’ s t es t i m onyt hathe t hr ew t he gun t o t he fl oorw i t houtal s o di s bel i evi ng O ffi cer St ew ar t ’ s t es t i m onyt hats he s aw t he gun fal l fr om K el l y ’ s l ap. W hi l e the D i s t r i ctC our tdoes notaddr es s t hi s s eemi ng in c o n sist en cy , o r oth ers tha t app ea r i n the re co rd, the C o u rt 16(

. . . cont i nued) 16 fi l l ed ( t her e w er e 15) , “ther e w er e peopl e s t andi ng in bet w een t he s eat s , ” and “ther e w er e peopl e s t andi ng behi nd [hi m ] ” ( A pp. 3 7 0 ). A c c o rd in g to Jo n e s, “ p e o p le w e re b u m p in g in to m e a ll ni ght , i tw as pr et t yt i ght

. ” (A p p . 372. ) B utC orpor al D rum m o n d te s t i fi ed thatt her e w as a t ot alo f 8 to 1 0 p e o p le in t he barw hen the o ffi cer s and i ns pect or s ent er ed, and O ffi cer C l ar k, w ho w as s eat ed t o J ones ’ s i m m edi at e l eft , t es t i fi ed that t her e w as no one st andi ng behi nd ei t herhi m orJ ones att he t i m e. Jo n e s a lso tes tifie d th a t w h e n h e b ru sh e d th e g u n o f f h is la p , it fel l i n fr ont of hi m , s l i ght l y t o hi s l eft

. T hi s w oul d m ean t hatt he gun fel l ar ound t he cornerof t h e b arfr om w her e K el l yw as sittin g , to K e lly ’s r ig h t. H o w e v e r, O f f ice r S tew a rt sp e c if

ica lly t est i fi ed thatshe saw t he gu n fal l t o t he fl oo r al on g K el l y ’s left le g . W e al s o not e t he i ncons i s t encybetw een G ant ’ s pos t

- t r i al a f f id a v it, w h ich K e llysu b m itt e d to th e C o u rt in su p p o rt o f h is m o t i o n f

o ra n e w t r i a l , a n d J o n e s ’ s h e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y. A ccor di ng t o G ant ’ s aff i davi t, Jo n es t ol d G antt hat , w hen the pol i ce e nt er ed C afé B r eez es t he morni ng of M ay 1, 2004, “he gotner vous and thr ew [t he gun] dow n o n the fl oor . ” ( A pp. 4 2 4 .) A t th e e v id e n tia r y h e a rin g , h o w e v e r, Jo n e s e x p licitly deni ed eve rt el l i ng G antt hathe thr ew t he gun bec ause h e w as ner vous w h en the pol i ce a ppear ed. T hes e ar e onl ya fe w e x a m p le s o f

in c o n s is te n c ie s th a t a p p e a r i n th e re c o rd

.

46 w a s re q u ire d to tak e th e m in to c o n sid e r a tio n . W e c a n n o t tell w h e th e r it d id s o ; a n d , at th e v e rylea st, th e c re d ib ili ty47 as s es s m entt hatt he C our tdi d m ake se ems i ncompl et e. H ad K el l y me t h i s b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e f i r s t f o u r p r o n g s of Ia n n e lli , w e w oul d r emand t o t he D i s t r i ct C our tfo r fur t her cl ar i fi cat i on. H o w ever , beca us e he ha s nots at i s fi ed Ia n n e lli ’s di l i gence r equi r ement , w e nee d notdo s o. W e mer el ynot e that a cr edi bi l i t yas s es s m enti s r equi r ed as par tof Ia n n e lli ’s pr obabi l i t y - of- acqui t t al anal y s i s , and i ts houl d t ake i nt o acc ount al l of t he evi dence t hata j ur yw oul d be l ikely to h earand c o n s id e r w e re th e d e f

e n d a n t g ra n te d a n e w tr ia l.
CO NC L US I ON
For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l R E V E R SE t he or der of t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng K el l y ’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al and R E M A N D fort he entr yof a j u d g m en t of convi ct i on and for s ent enci ng.

____________