## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3961 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. G UY J. W ES T MOR EL AND , D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:98- cr-30022-WD S -2

—Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Judg e.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 12, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 25, 2013

Befo re K ANN E , T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. Ov er a dec ade a g o , de fen dan t Guy W es tmor el an d was c o nv i ct ed i n two t r i al s, i n the fi rs t forco nspir acy to dist ribute a co ntro l l ed subs tance, and i n the s ec o nd f o rfi ve a ddi ti o na lc o unt s st emm i ng from t h e m urder ofthe w i fe o fhi s par tneri n drugdeal i ng: causing the death o fa perso n thr ough the use of a fi rearm du ring a dru g trafficking crim e; u s in g int ersta te com m er ce f aci l i ti es to com m i t m urder f orhi re ;2 N o. 10

- 3961 conspi ring to co m m i t m u rd erf orhi re ; ta m peri ng with a witness by com m i tting m urder; and causing the death o fa wi tn es s through us e o fa fi r ea r m . Hi s co nv i ct i o ns w er e a ffi rm ed on a pp eal

. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. We s t m ore l and, 240 F.3d 618 (7 t h Cir. 2001) (“ We s t m ore l and I”) ( dr ug c on sp ira c y co n vic tio n ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. We s t m ore l and, 31 2 F.3d 302 ( 7th Cir. 20 02) ( “ Wes tm orel and II”) ( m urder- re l ate d con victions). Aft erhe was c o nv i ct ed i n the murde rc as e, a nd w h ile h is a p p ea l from th os e c on vic tio n s w as p en d in g in Wes tm orel and II

, W estm or el and fi l ed a m oti on fornew tr i alun d er Fe deralRule o fCri m i nalPro cedure 33. T h e m ot ion arg u ed th at th e g ov er n m en t ’ s s u p p os ed ly outr age ou s co nd uct vi ol ate d his r i ght t o du e pr oce ss of l aw a nd tha t a ne w tr i alo n h i s m ur derc o nv i ct i o ns w as w ar ra nted beca use o fnewly d isc ove re d evi dence. H e fi l ed hi s m oti on o n Octobe r 4, 20 02. Otherthan gr anti ng the go vernm ent a n extens i on o ft im e fori ts re sponse, the dis tr i ct c ourtto ok no a cti on o n W est
m or el and’s m oti on f or seve ra l yea rs . I n the m ea nti m e, W est m or el and request ed the ap p oi ntm ent o fco unsel and com pla i ned to the di str i ct c ourtabo ut the del ay. The dis tr i ct c ourtul ti m atel y deni ed hi s m oti on o n Decem ber13 , 20 10, m or e than ei ght y ear s a fteri t was f i l ed

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. We s t m ore l and, 20 10 W L 51417 70 ( S. D. I l l

. Dec. 13 , 20 10)
. W est m or el and app eal s. W e r ev i ew the denia lo fa m oti on fora new tr i alf or a n a b u se of d isc re tio n . U nited Sta tes v. B o end er, 6 4 9 F. 3d 650, 65 4 (7 th Ci r. 20 11)
. “The di str i ct c ourtabuse s i ts d isc r e t i o n w h en it m ak es an err or of law or w h en itN o. 10

- 3961 3

m ake s a cl ear l y e rr oneo us fi nd i ng o ff act. ” U n i t e d Sta tes v. Fre e m an , 650 F.3d 6 73, 678-79 (7th C ir. 2011). W est m or el and al so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s del ay and i ts re fusalto appoi nt co unselvi ol ate d h is S i xth A m endm ent r i ghts , a n d w e r evi ew tho se cl ai m s deno vo . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fo s t er, 701 F.3d. 1142, 1150 ( 7th Cir. 2012 ) ( “W e ‘ re vi ew de nov o a di str i ct c ou rt r uling tha t affects a de fend an t’s Si xt h A m en d m en t rig ht s.’ ”), quoti ng U nite d S t a tes v. Nettles , 47 6 F
. 3d 508, 51 7 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07)
. Though w e a re tr ou b led , to saythe l eas t, by th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s u n e x p lain ed eigh t-y ea r d ela y in rul i ng, W est m or el and’s a rgum ents on the m er i ts do not w ar ra nt o ver turni ng hi s co nvi cti ons oro rderin g a new tr i al

. The dist ri ct cour t did not abuse its di scr eti on ind en yin g a n ew tria l, an d itc or re c tly fou n d th at h is c o n s t i t u t i o n a lr i g h t s w e r e n o tv i o l a t e d

. We a ffi r m.

I. Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d A br i efbac kgr ound o f W est m or el and and his cri m es w i l lse rv e t o fra m e thi s ca se. A dd i ti onalchi l l i ng detai ls ar e a va ilab le in We s t m ore l and Ia nd II
. In 199 7 a nd 19 98, W es tmor el an d a nd Ri ch ar d Abe l n wer e par tn er s i n a dr ugdi st r ibuti o n o per at i o n. Usi ngAbe l n’ s ai r pl an e, the pai ri m po r te d nine k i l o g r ams ofc o ca i ne a nd abo ut nin ety p ou nd s of m arij ua na from T ex as to a sm all a ir p ort in I ll inois. In late 1997, A beln w an ted to end his m arriage but d id n ot w an t to sp li t his assets w ith his w ife thro ugh a di vor ce. Instea d , h e d eci ded to have her ki l l ed. W est m or el and had p re vi ousl y m enti oned to A beln thathe c oul d have s om eone ki l l ed f or$1 , 000.4 N o. 10

- 3961 Bas ed on thatc o m m en t, Abe l n a sk ed W es tmor el an d about the pos sibi l i ty ofki l l i ng hi s wife. Ini ti al l y, W est m or el and declined. Then, t o p er suade hi m to tak e the j ob, A bel n tol d W est m or el and ( f al sel y) that hi s wi fe h a d d i s c o v e r e d the i rdrugt r a ffi c k i ngb us i ness and w as going to i nfo rm law enf or cem ent. W est m or el and changed hi s m i nd and beg an m aking ar ra ngem ents. W es tm o re lan d rec ru ite d D ea n d re L ew is t o c om m it th e m ur der

. A be l n a nd W es tmor el an d a g r ee d tha t th e m urder w oul d o ccur on Decem ber27, 19 97, ata l oca l ai r po r t an d tha t i t woul d b e st ag ed as a robb ery g o ne bad. Lew i s dro ve to the s cene i n a pi ck- up truck pro

vi ded byW es tmor el an d. Abe ln d rove hi s wi fe to the loc at ion in t h e fa m ily c ar . T h e c ou p le’s tw elv e-y ea r-o ld son wa s a l s o i n the c a r . W hi l e the Abe l n f a mil y was ther e, Lew i s a pp ro ached thei r carand dem anded M r s. A beln’s j ewe l r y . He pu l l ed he rfr o m the c ara nd shotherwith tw o ro und s fro m a double

-b arre l ed shot

gun. S he di ed at the s cene. A t the ti m e o fthe m urder, W es tm orel and w as on va catio n w i t h h is fa m ily inFlor id a t o e st ab lish an alib i. W hen he r etur ned, however, he he l ped L ew i s di spose ofM rs . A bel n’s j ew el ry . H e a l so re m ai ned i n re gu l ar co nt ac t wi thAbeln a s th e i nv es ti g at i o n b eg an, a dvi sing A bel n abo ut how to m i sl ead t h e p ol i ce. In spi te of th ose e ff orts, th e “robbe ry gone ba d ” scen ario fel l ap art quick l y under pol i ce s crutiny. T he i nvest i gat i on s oo n l ed to W est m or ela nd

. H e was ar re ste d on J anuary6, 19 98
. He was c o nv i ct ed o n A ug ust 20 , 1 99 8 o fthe dr ug co ns pi r ac y and on J une 2 8, 2 00 1 o fc r i m es r el at ed to theN o. 10

- 3961 5

m urder. The di str i ct c ou rt sentenced W est m or el and to 2 4 0 m o n th s o n th e d r u g c o n s p i r a c y c h a r g e a n d l i f e i mpri sonm ent o n the m urder- re l at ed char ges , to be se rv ed co n c u rre n tly

.
II. D ue P roc ess W es tm or ela n d ’s o p en in g a rg u m en t in th is a p p ea l is that cer tain conduct bythe gov er n m ent was so o utr ag eo us tha t his co nv i ct i o ns s ho ul d b e va ca te d a nd the c harg es ag ain st hi m di sm i sse d on due proc ess gr ou n d s . T h ou gh th e fa c ts p re se n te d are ce rt ain ly unu sual, hi s l ega lar gum ent i s no t persuas i ve. A fter W es tm or ela n d w a s c on vic te d of th e d ru g c h ar ge in We s t m ore l and I

, but b ef or e he w as tr i ed f orthe m urder ch ar g es i n Wes tm orel and II , the gov er nm en t le ar ned th at on e o ft h e le ad inv es tig at in g a ge n ts , an Il lin ois St ate Pol i ce a gent nam ed M ar ti n M ilko vi ch, had engag ed i n a s exualaff ai r w i th W estm or el and’s w i fe, Bronni e. Ini ti ali nd i cati ons w ere that the aff ai r bega n whi l e th e ca se a g ains t W es tmor el an d was b ui l di nga nd l as te d s ev er alm onths

. Upon di sc o ve r i ngthe a ff ai r, the fede r alg o ve r nm en t dr o pped i ts e ff o r ts t o s ee kthe dea thpe na l tya g ains t W es tmor el an d a nd Lew i s. The go ve rn m en t d id n otca l l M i l ko vic h as a w itn es s in W estm orel and’s seco nd tr i al, tho ugh Bronni e W est
m o rel an d di d t es ti fy . W he n que st i o ne d abo utthe aff ai r w i th M i l kov i ch, she tes ti fi ed that the a ffair l ast ed fro m N ove m ber19 99 unti lA pri l20 00. The r e i s no que st i o n tha t th e aff ai rt aint ed M i l k o vi ch. I n a sep arate in v estigation, the Il linois State P oli ce inter-6 N o. 10

- 3961 vi ew ed A ssi sta nt U ni ted States A tto rneyKit M or ri sse y, o n e o fth e g o v e r n me n t ’ s l e a d p r o s e c u t o r s , c o n c e r ni ng th e a ff a i r . M o r r i s s e y s a i d th a ti tw o u l d h a v e b e e n “ i mport ant” f orhi m to know thatM i l kov i ch had est abl i shed a s exualr el ati onshi p w i th Bro nnie : because o fthe obvi ous dam age to the case that th atc o ul d c au se . Tha t woul d h ave b ee n s o m ethi ng w e would have h ad to disc l ose , wh i ch w e di d w hen w e di d fi nd o utab o uti t
. And i two ul d a l s o have be en

— o b v i o us l y, i two ul d h a v e t o l d me tha tn e i ther oft hem can be t rust ed, and that

— I m ea n, i t w ou ld affect m y c ase i n eve ryas pect. Unt i lthe a ff a i rwa s di s c o v er ed, Mo r r i s s e y e xp l a i ne d, M i l kovich had bee n an i m port ant g ove rnm ent witness w h o w a s “ c en tr al t o th e in ve st iga tio n .” T h e Illino is St ate Pol i ce ul ti m ate l y i ss ued a f or m alco m pla i nt ag ai nst M i l k o v i c h a nd h i s e mpl o y men twa s t e r mi na t e d. W est m or el and argues that M i l kov i ch ’s a ff ai r w i th B ro n n ie W e st m or ela n d w as so ou tr ag eo u s t h at it i nfe cted the ent i re go vernm ent invest i gat i on a nd pro sec u t i o n, d e n y i n gh i m d u e p r o c e s s o fl a w. T h e a r g u m en t i s ba se d o n a d i ctum i n U nite d States v. R uss el l , 411 U
. S. 42 3 , 4 3 1

- 3 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , i n whi c h the S up r e me Co ur tr ej ecte d ane nt r apmentde fen se i n a n e ar l y meth amphet ami ne ca se . W r i ting f o r th e Cou r t, th en -J us ti ce Re hnqu i sts pec ul a t e d tha tthe Co ur t“ mays o me da y b e p r e s e nt e d” w ith co n d u c t b y g ov er n m en t a ge n ts so ou tr ag eo u s t h at it s h o u l d ba r th e g ov er n m en t fro m p ro se c u tin g a t a ll. In R uss el l i ts el f, a g o ve r nm en t ag en t ha d pr o vi ded o ne i ngred ien t f orthe drug thatwas diffi cul t but not i m pos-N o. 10

- 3961 7 sibl e t o obt ai n. That w as notso o utra geo us as to bar th e pr o se cut i o n, a nd the S upr eme Co ur t ha s no t foun d s uc h a b a ri n a nyo the rc a s e s i th a s de c i de d. R uss el l o ffer s no r ealgui dance to l ow er c ou rt s a s t o the type o r l eve lo fco nd uct bythe gov er nm ent that m i ght, st anding al one, am ount to a d u e pr oce ss vi ol ati o n, tho ugh the di ctum ha s be enthe f o cus o fa r g um ents by a num ber of defe nd ants i n the l ow er fed er al c o u r t s . W i th o u ts u c h g u i d a n c e fr o m th e S u p r e me C ou rt, ou r c ou rt h as d isa llow ed su c h a d efe n se int h is ci rcui t. S ee U nite d States v. Stall w orth , 656 F. 3d 721, 73 0 ( 7th Cir
. 20 11) , ci ti ng U nite d States v. White, 51 9 F
. 3d 342 , 3 46 (7t h C ir. 2 0 08 ); U nite d States v. G arci a , 89 F. 3d 362, 367 ( 7th Ci r. 199 6); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Boyd, 55 F. 3d 239, 24 1 (7th C ir. 1995). W es tm or el and poi nts o ut thato therci rcui ts have re cogni zed t h e o utra geo us co nd uct defense, tho ugh outri ght r eve rs al s o n the defe nse a re extr em ely r ar e. These few cas es m ake clear t h at eve n i fwe w er e incl i ned to re exam i ne o ur pre ced en t rej ecting the defense, thi s ca se w oul d not s up portthe de fen se . W here i t has bee n re cog ni ze d, the de fen se ha s co m e i nt o play o nl y wher e th e gov er nm ent’ s invol vem ent c re ate d a cr i m e o r cri m i nal enter pri se that did notexi st bef or e, and w here the gov ernm en t h ad to c o er ce the de fen dan t to c o m m i t th e c rim e b y s om e u n re as on ab le m ea n s. Fo r e x am p le, in U nite d States v. Solorio , 37 F. 3d 454, 460-61 ( 9 t h C ir. 1994), th e N i nth Ci r cui t i ni ti al l y r ev er se d a defen dan t’ s d r ug conv icti on o n an o utra geo us co nd uct theor y b ecause th e cou rt b elie ve d th at th e am ou n t th e gov er n m e n t p aid8 N o. 10

- 3961 to an inform an t had de p en d ed on th e d efend an t’s e v e ntua lc o nv i c t i o n a nd the qua nt i t y o fdrug s i nvol ved

. The panel l at er withdrew that opi ni on. 53 F. 3d 341 ( 9th C ir. 19 95 ). See als o, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. M o sley, 9 6 5 F. 2d 90 6 , 9 0 8

- 0 9 , 9 1 4 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( a g e n tp o s i n ga s dr ug deal erenti ced defendant to buy quanti ty ofcoc aine; cour t f ound that al though gov er nm ent’ s zeal w as exce ssi ve , c o nduc t was no t su ffici en tl y o ut r ag eo us t o fi nd d u e pr o c e s s v iola tio n ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Twigg, 58 8 F
. 2d 373, 38 0- 81 ( 3d Cir

. 19 78 ) ( outr age ous c onduct bar re d defe nd ants’ drug pros ecutio n w here go ver nm ent, thro ugh confi denti ali nfo rm ant, se t up a m et h am phetam ine lab and sup p li ed equ ipm en t and i ng red ients). Thi s case i s qui te di ffer en t fr o m tho se . W es tmor el an d co ns pi r ed to m urderM r s. Abe l n wi th o uta ny c o er ci o n, as si st an ce , o rinvo l ve m en t bythe g o ve r nm en t. The m urder happ ened l ong bef or e M i l kov i ch m et Bronn ie W est m or el and. Even i f w e a ssum e that the aff ai r tainted M i l k o vi ch ’ s i nv es ti g at i o n, the a ff ai rdi d no t pl aya ny ro l e in the cri m e i tse l f

. I fthe outr age ous c onduct defen se w er e a va ilab le a t a ll, th er efo r e , t h e a ffair w ou ld no ts a t i s fy the b a s i c f a c t ua lr e qu i r e men tf o ri tt o a pp ly. M il kovich ’s rel ationsh ip w ith W estm oreland ’s w i fe, al though a se ri ou s l apse o fM i l kov i ch’s pro fessi onalj ud gm en t, w as not an o utra geo us vi ol ati on o f W estm oreland ’s du e proc ess rights an d do e s n o t w arr a ntr e v e r s a l

. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d n o te r ro n thi s g r o un d.

III
. Newly D is covere d E vidence W est m or el and next ar gues th at h e s houl d have a new tr i alo n the basi s o fnewly disc ove re d evi dence. Fe deralN o. 10

- 3961 9 R ule of Crim inal Proced ure 33(a) p erm its a d istri ct cou rt to v a c a t e a n y j u d g me n t a n d g r a n t a n e w t r i a l “ i ft he i nter esto fj usti ce s o re quires. ” To show that the i nter est ofj usti ce r equi re s a new tri al, a defendant m ust p ro vid e e vid en c e t h a t ( 1 ) ca m e t o h is kn ow led ge on ly aftertr i al ; ( 2) co uld nothave bee n dis cove re d soo ner th r o ugh the e xercise o fdue di l i g en ce ; ( 3) i s m at er i ala nd n otm er ely im p ea c h in g or cu m u lat i v e ; an d (4) w ou ld probabl y l ead to an a cquit talin th e event ofa re tr i al

. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Hagler, 700 F.3d 109 1 , 1 1 0 1 (7th C ir. 2012), ci tingU nited Sta tes v. M cG ee, 408 F. 3d 966, 97 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U nited Sta tes v. R eyes , 542 F. 3d 588, 595 (7th Cir. 20 0 8 )
. We “ a pp r o a c h s uc h mot i o ns wi th g r e a tc a ut i on and are wa ry o fse cond-guessing the deter m i nati ons of both j ud ge an d j ury .” M cG ee, 4 08 F
. 3d at9 79 , quo ting U nited Sta tes v. D eP riest, 6 F .3 d 1 201, 1216 (7th C ir. 1993). W est m or eland pre sents two cat ego ri es of“newlydi sco ve r ed” e vi den ce . W e addr es s ea chi n tur n.

A
. Tim ing of the A

ff air W i th hi s m oti on f or a new tr i al, W est m or el and prese nted affi davi ts of thre e w i tness es w ho sta ted that the affair between M i l kov i ch and Bronni e W est m or el and bega n dur i ngM i l k o vi ch ’ s i nv es ti g ati o n

— n o t a f t er th e in ve st iga tio n h ad co n c lu d ed , as B ro n n ie t es tifie d attria l. A m y W ad e, G reg Sch m idt , and Tina K ue hl allsw ore that they had w i tness ed encounte rs betw een M i l kov i ch and B r o nn i e i n 1 9 9 8
. Amy W a de s t a t e d tha ti n M a y 1 9 98, sh e an d Br o nni e went d an cinga l lni g htwi thM i l k o vi ch

. Greg Schm i dt, a ne igh b or, te sti fi ed that i n A ugust 1 998,10 N o. 10

- 3961

Be f or e t r i a l , o n M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 , W e st m orel a nd s ub m i t t e d a 1 do cu m e ntt o the di s t r i c tc ou r tc a pt i on e d “ Ex P a r t e S up pl em en t al Res pons e To Gover nm en t ’ s M ot i on I n Li m i ne R eg a rd in g M ilk o v ic h /B ro n n ie W es tm o re la n d R el a tio n sh ip .” In it, he a ss e r t ed tha t he h ad a w itness, pre sum ab ly K u eh l, w ith info rm ati on that M il kov ic h and Bronnie w ere together as earl y as Febru ary or M arch 1998. he sa w M i l kov i ch vi si t Bro nnie o n sev er alo ccasi ons, sta yi ng f or seve ra l hours, som eti m es ove rni ght, w i th M i l kov i ch som et i m es l eaving with differ ent c l othe s than he h a d w o r n w h e n h e a r r i v e d

. O n o n e o c c a s i o n S c hmi dt sa w Bro nni e an d M i l k o vi chk i ss . The thi r d a ffi an t, Ti na K u eh l, i s W es tm or ela n d ’s s ist er . Sh e s ta te d th at in M ar ch 199 8, she w ent into Bronni e’ s ho m e a nd sa w M i l kov i ch and Bronni e l eaving Bronnie ’ s be droo m as M i l kov i ch w as tucking in hi s s hi rt
. K uehl ’ s t est i m ony w as not “new ”

— she su b m itt ed an a ffid av it in 20 01 , bef or e t h e m u rd er tria l

— but the t ri al cour t doubte d K uehl ’ s cr edibi l i ty bec au se ofherr el ati onship to W est m or el and and because K uehl had as si st ed Br o nni e i n de str o y i nge vi den ce . W es tmor el an d 1 co nc ede s th atKueh l ’ s ev i den ce i s no t ne w, b uthe a r gu e s th a tWa d e ’ s a n d S c h mi d t ’ s e v i d e n c e i s n e w. He ar g ue s tha t the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s ne g a t i v e a s s e s s men to f K uehl ’ s cr edibi l i ty w as the r eas on he d id n ot anti ci pate o r discov er earli er that other w itness es cou ld corro b or at e K u eh l’s t es tim on y, an d it w as on ly a fte r tr ial, w he n W ad e and Schm idt ca m e forw ar d , that K ue hl’s sta tem ent had anyf or ce. W es tm or el and concl ud es that if th is c or ro b or at in g e vid e n c e h a d co m e t o ligh t e ar lier, itN o. 10

- 3961 11 like ly w ou ld h av e le d to h is a c q u i tt al b ec au se it w ou ld ha ve su g g es te d to th e j ur y th at M i l k o vi ch ’ s par t of th e m urd er i nv estigation h ad been corrup ted by the aff air. W est m or el and’s ar gum ent s how s o ne o fi ts fatal fl aw s. F o r th e co ur t to tr ea t th e W ade an d S ch m i dt affi d a v i t s a s n e w e v i de n c e , We s t mo r e l a n d mu s td e monst ra te that they coul d n ot h ave bee n dis cove re d so on er th ro u gh th e e x er c ise of d u e d i lige n c e. B efo re h is tr i alb eg an, W es tmor el an d knew of th e f ac ts unde r l y i ng the a ffi davi ts. H e knew o fthe aff ai r, and he believ ed th at it h ad be g un e ar l i ertha n the g o ve r nm en t an d Bronni e sai d i t did. Though he m ay have thought at the t i m e that i t was notworthwh i l e t o pu rs u e o ther w i tn e s s e s who c o ul d c o r r o b o r a t e hi s s i s t e r, he do e s no t ar gue that he coul d no t have disc ove re d s uch w itn esses so o ne r, o nl y t ha t he c ho se no t to t r y . Tha t i s no t due d ilige nce. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. The odos opou l os , 48 F. 3d 14 38 , 144 9 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ) (w itn es s’ s p o st -tr ial a ffid av it w as not “new l y di sco ver ed” wh er e defendant f ai l ed to exer ci se du e di l i gence ; defendan t to ok no s teps t o se cur e wi tn es s’ s te sti m o ny b uti ns te ad so ughta mis sing w itn es s in st ru c tio n ); U nited S t a t e s v. M cG a ug hey, 97 7 F. 2d 106 7, 10 75 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( f ai l ure to conduct exhaustive search f or do c u m e nt show ed l ack of nec essary du e dil i gence )
. This w as not new l y disc ove re d evi dence w ar ra n tin g a n ew tria l. W es tm or ela n d als o fa ils to sh ow th at h e like ly w oul d have be en acqui tt ed ifthe j ury had heard that M i l k o vi ch ’ s aff ai ro ve r l appe d wi thhi s i nv es ti g at i o n. The r e i s no do ubttha t M il kovi ch ’ s be ha vi o rt aint ed th e12 N o. 10

- 3961

W e s t m or e l a nd a l s o a r gu e s tha tthe di s t r i ct c ou r te r r e d b y 2 rej ect ing the W ade and Schm idt affidavits because the y l acked “a ny f ou nd atio n a s to ho w th e a ffi a nts m ay ha v e b een ab le to id en tify the i nd ividual al le ged ly i nvo lved w ith Bronn ie as M ilk ovich. ” We s t mor e l a nd, 20 10 W L 51 41 77 0, at* 4. W i thout suc h a sho w ing , the d ist r i c t c ou rt fou nd tha t the affida v its would h ave be eni nadm i s s ibl e. Give n o ur r es ol ut i on ofthe qu estion of w he the r the affid av its w arr an t a ne w trial, the ir ad m issibility is m oo t. govern m en t’s case, and th e longer the affair, the m ore ex te ns i ve we c ana ss um e th e ta i ntwoul d ha ve b ee n. W e are not p e r s u ad ed , thou gh, that eviden ce of a long er aff air w ou ld h ave led to acq uittal. T he j ury that convi cted W est m or el and ofM rs . A beln’s m u rd er learned that M il kovich and Bron n ie h a d had an affair

. W es tm or ela n d h as n otid en tifie d an y p a rt icu lar ev id en c e a ga in sth im th at sh o u l d b e d ee m ed les s c re d ible orpro bati ve i fthe aff ai r began b ack i n the spri ng o f 1998 , wh i ch w oul d sti l lhave bee n sev er alm onths after M rs . A bel n’s m urder. I t i s hi ghl y doub tful that the o utco m e o fthe murde rt r i alwoul d ha ve b ee n an y di ffer en t i fthe j ur y h a d h e a r d e v i dence

— ev i dence thatwas disputed bythe gov er nm ent

— th at th e aff ai rha d b egun wh i l e Mi l k o v i c h w a s s t i l l i nv e s t i g a t i n gth e c a s e . In s u m, th e W ad e a n d Sc h m id t a ffid av its als o a re n ot“n ew ly d isc ov er ed ev id en c e” th at w ou ld w ar ra n t a n ew tria l. 2

B
. M i l kovi ch ’s Re ca nt at i on Throughout the g ove rnm ent’ s in vest i gat i on a nd pro sec ut i o n, Mi l k o v i c h s t a t e d tha twh e n W e s t mor e l a nd wasN o. 10

- 3961 13

The d ist ri c tc our tc ons i der ed thi s e vi denc e underthe 3 s t a nd a r d use d to c on s i de r the i m pa c to fr e c a nt e d tr ia l tes timony . Un d er that s tandard , the court m ust consi der w hether : ( 1) i ti s r easo nabl y wel l s at i s fi ed thatt es t i m ony gi venby the witne s s was f al s e; ( 2) the j ury m ightha ve re ac he d a di ffer en t concl us i on abs e nt the f a l s e t e s t i m on y or i f i t ha d kn own t hat the t e s ti m ony was f a l s e ; a nd ( 3 ) the de fe nd a ntwa s t a ke n by surpri s e and was una bl e t o m ee t the f al s e t es t i m ony or d id not know ofi ts f als ity until after t ri a l. See U ni t ed Sta t es v. Tayl or, 600 F.3d 863, 870 ( 7th Cir

. 2010)
. W es tm orel and argues th a tth e d i st r i c tc o u r t e r r e d w h e n itc o n si d e r e d M i l k o v i c h ’s reca nta tion un d er th is st an d ard

. M i l k o v i ch d id no t testify in Westm or e la n d II

, s o w hatever M il kov ic h m ight have recant ed (co n tin u ed ...) ar re ste d, he sa i d he did notk n ow a n ythi ng ab out a “mur der

- f o r - hi r e” s ch eme. The e vi den ce was i m po rtan t because no one had sai d anythi ng to W est m or el and at that poi nt abo ut a m urder. S ee D kt . 9 04 Ex
. D ( M i l kov i ch J a n . 6 , 1 9 9 8 i n v e s t i g a t i v e r e p o r t ) ( “ WES T MOR E L AND told age nt s he d idn ’t know anyt h in g a bou t any m urd er, es pec i al l y a murde rf o rhi r e, b utdi d a dm i t to s el l i ng drugs fo r RI CH A RD A BE LN
. ”) ; Dkt. 90 4 Ex. F ( M i l kov i ch g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny )
. M i l k o vi chr epe at ed th i s te st i m o ny i n We s t mor e l and I

, D kt . 904 E x . H (M ilko vic h tria l te st im on y), bu t M ilko vic h d id n otte st ify in Wes tm orel and II

. W es tm or ela n d arg u es in t h is a p p ea l

— w hi cha g ain, is a n ap p ea l fr o m th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d en ial of h is m o ti o n for a ne w m ur dert r i ali n Wes tm orel and II

— that M i l kov i ch l ate r re canted these sta tem ents an d that hi s r ecanta ti on i s new evi dence w ar ra nti ng a new tr i al on the m urder charg es. W e di sag re e. 314 N o. 10

- 3961

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 w as not t ri al tes ti m ony in thatcas e. W es tm orel and argues thatthe di strictcourt should have consi dered the evidence un de r th e t e s tf o r n e wl y d i s c o v e r e d e v i de n c e . T h e g o v e r nm e n td o e s n o ta r g u e o th e r w i se . W e r e v i e w th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s dec i s i on u nd erthe t es tf or ne wly di s c ove re d evi denc e, but W estm or elan d ’ s claim f ails un d er eith er test. I n s uppo r t o fhi s m o ti o n for a new tr i al, W es tmor el an d prese nted the affi davi ts of hi s fri end, St eve K or ris , and his si ste r, Renee W est m or el and. They st ate d that they m et w i th M i l kov i ch on J anu ary 8 , 20 04, and that at th e m ee tinghe r ec an te d hi s ea r l i ers ta te m en ts , t ell in g Kor r i s an d Re ne e W es tmor el an d tha t W es tm orel an d m ad e n o s ta te m en t t o p olic e w h at so ev er u p on h is ar re stan d ins te ad “la w ye r e d u p .” Se e D kt . 904 , E x . B ( 3/ 11/2004 Korr i s Affi davi t) ( M i l kov i ch to l d K or ri s that “Guy W est m or el and m ad e no st ate m ent whatsoe verto pol i ce when arr est ed i n connect i on with th e m urder of D eb ra A b eln .”); id

. a t E x. C ( 3/ 10 /20 04 R. W es tmor el an d A ffi d av it) (“ M ar ty sai d that o n the m or ni ng o f Gu y Wes t mor e l a nd ’ s a r r e s t, h e o rKa l e Jack s o n, a F BI age nt, had N OT go tte n any ty p e of s tat em ent fro m Gu y W est m or ela n d, i n f act he ‘ l aw yer ed up.’ They cou ldn ’t get him to talk to the m at all

. ”). A gain, to sa ti sfy the st an d ar d fo r new l y di sco ver ed evid ence, W est m or el and m ust s how thatthe evi dence: ( 1) w as d i sco ver ed aftertr i al ; ( 2) co uld nothave bee n disc ove re d soo ner w i th due dil i gence ; ( 3) was m ate ri al an d n otsim p ly im p ea c h in g or cu m u l at ive ; an d (4) if p re se n te d ata n ew t ria l, w ou ld p ro b ab ly re su lt inN o. 10

- 3961 15 W est m or el and’s acqui tta l

. S ee Hagler, 70 0 F
. 3d at 1101
. T h e K or ris an d R en e e W es tm or ela n d affid av its fail eve rypro ng o fthi s t est
. Fir st, eve n if th e e v i d e n c e o f w h at M ilko vic h sa id m i g hth a v e b e e n ne w, Wes t mor e l a nd ’ s o wn s t a t e ments at th e t im e o f h is a rre stco u ld n oth av e b ee n “n ew ly disc ov er ed ” t o W est m or el and. H e was the re and knew w h at h e s aid or d id n otsa y a t th e t im e. Se c on d , th e e vid en ce mustb e admi ss ibl e to b e m at er i al, a nd M i l k o vi ch ’s st at ement s to Kor r i s and R en ee W es tmor el an d abo ut w ha t W estm oreland said w ou ld be inad m issible hearsayas pro ofo fwh at W est m or el and sai d o r did notsa y. Thir d, eve n i fadm i tte d, the s ta te m ents w oul d have ser ved atm osto nl y t o i m p ea c h the tes ti m ony ofM ast er S er g ea ntCa l vin Dy e o fthe I l l i no i s S ta te Po l i ce , who did testify a t W est m or el and’s m urder tr i al

. S er gea nt Dye wa s wi th M i l k o v i c h whe n W e s t mor e l a nd wa s a r r est e d, and he te sti fi ed con si ste ntl y with M i l kov i ch’s o ri gi nal sta tem ent. Fo urth, i t is un l i kely that thi s e vi dence, had it been ad m itted , w ou ld h ave led to W estm oreland ’s acq uittal. T he case aga inst W estm oreland w as very st r o ng, a nd the ne w ev i den ce w as w ea k

. By the t i m e o fthe m urd er tr i al, M i l kov i ch’s cr edibi l i ty w as non- exi ste nt, and D ye’ s t est i m ony w as d i re ctl y c ontr ar y o n the subj ec t. W e rej ec t W es tm or ela n d ’s a rg u m en t t h at th e K or ris an d R en ee W es tm or ela n d affid a vit s a m ou n t t o n ew ly d isc ov er ed ev id en c e e n tit lin g h im to a n ew tria l.

IV
. S ix t h A me n d me n tC l a i ms W es tmor el an d c o nt en ds th athi s S i xth Am en dm en t ri ghts w er e v i ol ate d in two w ays . Fi rs t, he s ubm i ts that16 N o. 10

- 3961 hi s r i ght t o a s peedy tr i alwas vi olated by the di str i ct c ou rt’ s e xcessi ve del ay i n rul i ng o n hi s m oti on fora new tr i al

. S eco nd , he a rgues that hi s r i ght t o counselwas vi o l at ed. As t r o ubl i nga s th e longde l ayi n de ci di ngthe mot i o n wa s , we fi nd n o r e v e r s ib l e e r r o ro n e i the rg r o un d.

A
. D e l aye d Deni al of

M ot i on f

orNe w Tri al W est m or el and fi l ed hi s m oti on fora new tr i alo n O c t o b e r 4 , 2 00 2. H is d ire c t a p p ea l w as p en d in g, an d h is mo t i o n wa s fi l e d a s a s u p p l e me n tt o h i s a ppea l

. He w as re prese nted by counselatthe ti m e, bu t he prepar ed hi s m oti on fora n ew tr i alpro se . H i s l aw yerfi l ed W es tmor el an d’ s m o ti o n wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t as a c o urtes y a nd descr ibed hi s a ctio n i n a c ove r l ett er : “Altho ugh fas h ion ed as an ap p ella te br ief, M r. W es tm or ela n d w ou ld l i ke the pl eadi ng to be treat ed as a m oti on for[ a] new tri al b a s e d o n n e wly di s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , u n d e rF e d

. R
. C r i m. P. Rule 33
. ” On Januar y 2 2, 2003 , the dist ri ct c ourtco nstr ued W est m or el and’s October4 papers a s a R ule 33 new tri al m oti o n a nd o r de r e d the g o v e r nme ntt o fi l e a r e s po nse wi th i n 2 0 day s. The c ou rt’s o r derno te d tha t afte rthe c ou rtrec eiv ed th e g ov er n m en t’s res p on se , i t w ou ld deter m i ne wh ether“a n evi denti ar y hea ring i s r equi re d for res olu tio n of th e m ot ion .” On Febr uary4, 20 03, W est m or el and fi l ed a m oti on f or ap poi nt men to fc o un s e la nd f o ra s t a y o fthe p r o c e e di ngs. The next d ay , he m ove d to sta y the pro ceedi ngs i n the dist ri ct c ourtpending an in te rl ocuto ryappealr e-N o. 10

- 3961 17 g a r d i n gth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tj u d g e ’ s r e fu s a lto r e c u s e h i mse lf. W est m or el and’s re quest fora sta y was g ra nted on F ebr uary18 , but hi s a pp ealwas dis m i sse d the next day. M or e than a y earl ate r, o n A pri l26 , 20 04, W estm or el an d fi l ed a “S uppl ementt o S ta te m en t o fFa cts, in Li g ht of Addi t i o na l Ne wl y Di s c o v e r e d F a c t s . ” On M ay 12, 2004, A ugust 1 8, 20 04, and Se p te m ber22 , 20 04, the gov ernm en t fi l ed r eque st s f o re xt en si o ns of t i m e to r es po nd to W est m or el and’s pend i ng m oti ons. T he r eco rd does not r e fl e c twh e the rthe l a s to fthe s e r e qu e s t s wa s g r a nt e d. I n the m eanti m e, W est m or el and fi l ed a m otion f or sa nc ti o ns ag ains t th e g o ve r nm en t, a r g ui ngtha t i ts c o ntinue d d el ay s ha d pr ej udi ce d hi m . He a r g ue d tha t th e fede r alr ul es “ ar e des i g ne d t o pr o m o te j us ti ce a nd pr ev en t del ay, ” that “ [ a] ny furtherdel ay w i l l be hi ghl y pr ej ud i ci al to W es tmor el an d, ” an d tha t he “ ha s bee n a nd i s be i ng se ve re ly p reju d ice d by th e U n ite d Sta te s’ b eh av ior in th is ca se a nd Rul e 11 s an ct ions sho ul d b e i m po se d o n the U n ite d Sta te s a c c or d in gly .” The go vernm ent ul ti m ate l y fi l ed i ts re sponse to W est m or el and’s new tr i alm oti on o n Sep tem ber29 , 2 0 0 4
. Wes t mor e l a nd fi l ed hi s r e pl y o n De c e mbe r1
. On D ec em b er 7, 20 04 , W es tm or ela n d su p p lem en te d h is ple ading s wit h exc e r pts f ro m the adm i ni str ati ve hear i ng tr anscr i pts r el ate d to th e Il l i noi s S tat e Po l i ce D ep a rt m en t in ve st iga tio n int o th e M ilko vic h affa ir wi th Br o nn i e Wes t mor e l a nd

. By 2 0 0 8 , ho we v e r, the di s t r i c t c o ur t ha d no t r ul ed on an y of th e pe nd ing m otions. In Feb rua ry of th at year, W est m oreland fi l ed a “ M oti on forDeter m i nati on o f18 N o. 10

- 3961 S ta tu s o n De fen dan t’ s R ule 3 3 M o ti o n. ” S ti l l, no th i ng happ ened. A t l ong l ast, the dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed W es tmor el an d’ s m oti o n fo ra ne w tr i ala nd hi s m o ti o ns to ap p oi nt co unselo n Decem ber13 , 20 10

— m or e than ei ght y ear s a fterhi s o ri gi nalm oti on a nd si x ye ars after the g ove rnm ent’ s r espon se. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni al addr es se d the s ubs ta nc e of W es tmor el an d’ s m o ti o ns but di d not co m m ent o n orexpl ai n thi s e xtended d el ay. W es tm or ela n d arg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ela y in rul i ng o n hi s m oti on fora new t ria l v i ol ate d the S i xth A m en d m en t’s p ro m ise of “t h e rig h t to a sp ee d y a n d p u b lic tr i al

. ” Both th e ac c u sed and so ci etyas a w hol e hav e a n i nter esti n prom pt re soluti on of cri m i nalpro ceedi ngs. S ee Barke r v. Wi ngo , 40 7 U.S
. 51 4, 51 9- 20 ( 1972 )
. Fa ded m em ori es and l ostev i dence m ay i m pai r a defendant’s abi l i ty to defen d hi m se l fi f to o much t i m e pas se s be twe enthe accusat i on and the tr i al . See id. at 521. Del ay m ay al so ex ac erb at e a d efe n d an t’s an x iet y a n d u n n ec e s sa rily d ra in a defen d an t’ s fi nanci alr eso urces . S ee M oorev. Ar izona , 414 U
. S. 25, 27 (1973). Ou r case s, however, have notaddress ed wh ether the r i ght t o a s peedy tr i alat taches to a post- tr ial m oti on fo rne w tr i al

. The Te nth Ci r cui t, i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Yeh l i ng, 45 6 F
. 3d 1236 , 1243 ( 10th Cir
. 20 06) , r eas oned that because concerns cal l i ng f or a speedy tr i alal so apply to m oti ons f ora new tr ial b ase d on newly discove re d evi dence, i t would a pp l y the spee dy tr i alanal ysi s. I n doi ng so, i t hel d that a f our- yea r de lay in d enyi nga mot i o n fo ra new tri aldi d no t vi o l at e th e S i x th Ame n d me n t
. We n e e d n o td e c i d e wh e th e rweN o. 10

- 3961 19 ag r ee wi ththe Te nth Ci r cui t th atthe sp eedyt r i alr i g ht a t t a c h e s t o a mo t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l

. E v e n i f we a s s u me that the r i g hta t t a c he d, Wes t mor e l a nd c a nn o ts ho w tha ts uc h a r i g htwa s v i o l a t e d. A Si xth Am en d m en t spe edyt r i alc l ai m tur ns o n the f ol l owing gener alfact or s: “whether del ay bef or e t ri al was unc o m m o nl y l o ng, whethe rthe g o ve r nm en t o rthe cri m i nald efendant i s m or e t o bl am e forthatdel ay, wheth e r, i n d u e c o u r s e , th e d e fe n d a n ta s s e r t e d h i s r i g ht to a s peedy tr i al, and w hether h e su ffer ed prej ud i ce a s th e d ela y’s res u lt
. ” Dogge t tv. U ni t e d S ta tes , 50 5 U.S
. 64 7, 6 5 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ; s e e a l so U n it ed States v. W hite, 44 3 F
. 3d 582, 589 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. A l though W est m or el and i s abl e t o sat i sfy s om e o fthe f acto rs with r espectto h is m ot ion for a new tr i al, he c annot show prej ud i ce

— wh i ch, because he w as convi cted, m ust be “ substa nti al ” a nd “dem onst ra bl e. ” Yeh l i ng, 45 6 F
. 3d at 1245 , quoting Pe rez v. Sul l i van , 793 F.2d 24 9, 25 6 (1 0t h C ir. 19 86 ). T h is c laim ther ef or e f ai l s. The fi rs t f acto r, an uncom m onl y l ong del ay, “i s no t s o m uch a f acto r as i t i s a thr esho l d requi re m ent. ” U nited Sta tes v. Lo era , 56 5 F
. 3d 406, 412 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. Del ays ap p ro a c h in g on e y ea r ar e “ p re su m p tiv ely p rej u d icia l,” White, 44 3 F
. 3d at 589- 90, and the dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s del ay here was uncom m onl y l ong. W e r eco gni ze that dist ri ct cour ts f ace chal l engi ng ca sel oads a n d t hat s om e r easo nabl e del ay s ar e i ne vi tabl e. In thi s ca se , ho wev er, the dist ri ct c ourtf ai l ed to ta ke any s ubstanti ve acti on o n W est m or el and’s m oti on forei ght y ear s and has offer ed no e xpl an at i o n fo ri ts de lay

. Thi s del aywas pl ainl y e x-20 N o. 10

- 3961

c es siv e a n d , onth is re c or d , u n e x p lain ed . W e a re u n ab le t o di s c e r n a r e a s o n f o r i t fr o m the po s t
- v e r di c t dock et inth is c as e, w h ich d oe s n ot a p p e a r to be u n u su ally bus y o rc o mpl e x. We a l s o c a nn o tr e l y o n the di str i ct co ur t’ s expl an at i o n, f o rthe c o ur t g av e no ne . W i th o ut m or e, tho ugh, ev en thi s unacce ptabl y e xcessi ve dela y is not suffici en t to establish p r ej ud ice and to requ ire that the m urder convi cti ons be s et asi de. W he n we an alyze th e pr ej udi ce e l emento fa c o ns ti tu
ti onalspeedy tr i alcl ai m , we or dinar ily w ei gh thr ee i nter est s: ( 1) pre venting o pp ress ive pretr i ali ncarc er ati on; ( 2) m i n im izing the a nxie ty and concern ofthe accused; and ( 3) l i m i ti ng the poss ibi l i ty that the defense wi l lb e i mpa i r e d. S ee B a rker, 40 7 U.S
. at53 2. W hen W est m or elan d file d his m oti on fora new tr i alhe ha d al re ady be en co nvi cted o fa success fu lco nspir acy to com m i t m urder and had been se ntenced t o serve the r est ofhi s l i fe in pri son. W hen the district c ourtfi nal l y r evi ew ed h i s m o ti o n fo rne w tr i al, i t f o und tha t th e m oti on had no m er i t, a fi nd i ng with w hi ch w e a gr ee. G iven th is postu re, w e m us t rej ect W estm oreland ’s ar gum en ts
. He a r g ue s th athe was pr ej udiced b y the eig h t year s that he suffer ed anxi etyand w or rywh i le wai tingf o rr es o l ut i o n o fhi s m o ti o n fo rne w tr i al

. But W est m or el and’s m oti on fornew tri aldi d n ot chal l enge hi s co nvi cti on a nd co n curr ent 2 40 m onth s entence f or th e dr ugc o ns pi r ac y . T hu s, whi l e he wai te d f o ra r ul i ng on hi s m oti on fornew tri al, he was noti ncarc er ate d a n y l o n g e rth a n h e wo u l d h a v e b e e n o th e r wi s e , a n d we are notpers ua d ed that any ad d iti o n al anx iety or w orry because o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s del aye d ru ling r equi re sN o. 10

- 3961 21 th at he be exon erated f or th e m urd er. Once he was c o nv i c t e d a nd s e nt e nc e d a nd h i s c o nv i c t i o n a nd s e nt ence ha d b ee n a ffirm ed o n a ppea l, hi s i nc ar ce r at i o n a nd a ny re sul ti ng anxi etyo r w or ryr esul ted fro m hi s crim es, n otfrom d ela y in d ec id in g h is m ot ion for a n ew tria l. W est m or el and al so ar gues that he was prej ud i ced by th e del ayb ec au se i t be ca m e d i ffi cul t to pr es er ve do cum entary evidence and w i tness te sti m ony ove r that ti m e, an d th at whi l e he wai te d f o r hi s r ul i ng, his co- defen dan t ( A bel n) com m i tte d sui ci de. A gain, W est m orel and had been convi cted a n d hi s co nvi cti ons affi rm ed. H i s t ri al de fe ns e h a d n o tb e e n i mpa i r e d. Abe l n’ s l a t e rs ui c i de di d n o ta ffe c tWes t mor e l a nd ’ s p o s t
- c o nv i c t i o n pr o c e e din gs . W es tm or ela n d d oe s n otsu gg es t t h at if A b e ln ha d l ived , he w ou ld h ave reca n t e d h is inc ulp atory tr i alt es ti m o ny o rwoul d ha ve provi ded an y o th ere xcul pator y e vi dence. The ar gum ents ra ised in the m oti on f ora new tr i alr ega rdi ng new evi dence l acke d m er i t. W es tm or el and w as not prej ud i ced by hi s inabi l i ty to p re se rv e e vid en c e t o s u p p or t a m er itle ss m ot ion . W h ile w e do not condone the del ay, witho ut a showing of p r ej u d ice th e w aitW es tm or ela n d en d u re d w h ile h is m oti on fora new tr i alwas pend in g coul d not hav e amoun te d t o a v i o l at i o n of h is S i xth Am en dm en t r i g ht to a speedy tr i al w ar ra nti ng dism i ssa l ofth e c h ar ges o n whi c h he wa s c o nv i c t e d.

B
. R igh t to C o un sel Fi nal l y, W est m or el and argues that he shoul d rec ei ve a n e w t r i a lb e c a us e h i s r i g htt o c o un s e lwa s v i o l a t e d. W est m or el and w as repres ented byco unseli n hi s di re ct22 N o. 10

- 3961 appeal

. W hi l e that a pp ealwas pend i ng he fil ed hi s pro se mot i o n f o ra n e w t r i a l

. T he do c ume nttha twa s fi l e d, al though fi l ed w ith t h e di str i ct c ourtas a new tr i al m oti on a nd tr eat ed as such, was capti oned to be fi l ed i n thi s co urt a s a “Pr o Se S up ple m entalBri ef” t o W es tm or ela n d ’s d ire c t a p p ea l. T h e re c or d rev ea ls th at W es tm or e lan d w an te d h is l a wy e rt o p r e s e ntthe a r g ume nt s wi thin hi s “ Pr o S e S up ple m entalBri ef” o n dir ect appeal, but hi s l aw yerr efused

. Ins tead , h is atto rney sub m itted W estm oreland ’s m oti on t o the di str i ct c ourt, but di d so onl y a s a “co urte sy” to W e s t mor e l a nd

. S e e Dk t
. 8 9 0 a ti( M o t i o n f o rN ew Tri al, styl ed as “Pro S e S up plem en talBri ef” t o W est
m or el and’s dir ect appeal ) ( “The i ssues pre sente d he re in ar e ba se d o n n ewl y di sc overed ev i den ce tha t i s wor thy ofthi s Court ’s attenti on a nd r evi ew . H owever, the Defendant/Ap pel l ant’ s co urt appoint ed counsel

. . . r efuses to p resen t the se issues to this Cou rt forreview
. ”); D kt . 899 E x . A (co u n se l’s c ov er let t e r to co u rt ), E x . B ( W est m or el and’s lett erto co unsel ) ( “Iam r equesting ( as Idi d i n J uly ) thatyo u fi l e a [ m oti on for n ew tr i al ] bas ed on th e n ew ly d isc ov er ed ev id en c e t h at I se n t y ou in J uly 2002. Iam enti tl ed to effecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel to prese nt the se c laim s up on newlydi sco ver ed evi dence an d th er efo re , Iam as kin g y ou to ta ke n ot i c e o f th is co ns ti tu ti o na l l y pr o te ct ed r i g htc o ns i st en t wi thc ur r en t 7th Ci rcui t pr ecedent per K itch en v . U nited Sta tes , 227 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2000).”)
. W hi l e hi s m oti on fora new tr i alwas pend i ng, W est m or el and fi l ed two m oti ons f orappoi ntm ent o f c o u n s e l

. He fi l e d hi s f i r s to n F e b r u a r y 4 , 2 0 0 3
. HeN o. 10

- 3961 23

re n ew ed th at m ot ion on D ec em b e r 2 , 2 00 4, n ot in g in h is filin g th at “[t ]h is c as e is ge tt in g m or e a n d m or e c om p lica te d a nd di ffi cul t f o rDe fen dan t to mana g e, ” an d statin g “[a]s th is Cou rt i s aw are, D efend an t s u ffers m ental i m p air m en t [s ic] a n d is re lyin g s ole ly o n ‘ j ai l

- ho us e l awy er s’ an d f ami l y t o pr o ce ed wi ththe in v e s t iga tio n an d m an ag e t h e litig at ion . D efe n d an t is i ncom petent to do s o al one. ” The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed these r equests witho ut co m m ent when it d en i ed W est
m or el and’s m oti on fora new tr i al

. S ee We stm o re l and, 2010 W L 51417 70, at*7. W estm or el and contends that th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alv i o l at ed hi s S i xth Am en dm en t ri ght t o counsel

. H e a sse rt s that be cau se h e w as denie d counself orhi s new tr i alm oti on , h e shoul d be g ra nted a new tri al. A lthou gh w e agree th at W e s tm oreland ’s r i g htt o c o un s e la t t a c he d t o h i s mo t i o n, we c o nc l ud e that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not v i ol ate thatr i ght. A s W estm oreland noted i n his l etter to his law yer, th i s si tu at i o n i s si m i l ar to th atpr es en te d i n Kit ch e n v . U nited Sta tes, 227 F. 3d 1014 ( 7th C i r. 20 00)
. Kitc hen fi l ed a m oti on fornew tr i alwh i l e hi s di re ct a pp ealwas p en d in g, p re se n tin g e vid en c e t h a t h e a rg u ed w as n ew ly disc overe d. U nl i ke thi s ca se, tho ugh, Kitc hen’s appeal wa s s t a y e d wh i l e h i s mo t i o n f o rn e w t r i a lwa s de c i de d. W hen hi s new tr i alm oti on was deni ed, hi s co unselnegl ecte d to file a noti ce o fappealfro m the denia l, pre cl ud i ng appel l ate r evi ew . Kitc hen then fi l ed a m oti on u nd er28 U
. S. C. § 2 255 ar gui ng tha t he had been deni ed h is rig h t t o e ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e of c ou n se l w h en h is tr i al/a pp el l ate co unself ai l ed to fi l e a not i ce o fappeal fro m the denia l of hi s m oti on f or a new tria l. Id

. at10 17.24 N o. 10

- 3961 W e f aced the f ol l owing questi ons: ( 1) wh etherKitc hen ha d a ri gh t to cou ns el for his pre-ap p eal m otio n for a new tr i al ; ( 2) wh etherhi s co unsel ’ s f ai l ure to fi l e a not i ce ofappealwas defi ci ent per f or m ance; and ( 3) w h et her K it c h e n w as en titl ed to a presu m p tion of p rej ud ice or, if no t, w h et h er h e h ad sh ow n p rej u d ice
. Id

. A dd re ssing the fi rs t i ssue, we hel d that Ki tchen had a r i ght t o c ounself orhi s pre - appeal m oti on fora new tr i al

. The S i xth A m endm ent r ight to counselexte nd s t o al l“t ri al

- l i ke confro ntati ons” connect ed to a cri m i nal pros ecuti on. S ee U n ited S ta tes v. A sh , 41 3 U.S
. 30 0, 31 1- 12 (19 73 ); K itch en , 22 7 F
. 3d at 1018 ( “[ O]nce a defendant’s r i ght to co unselat taches , the ri ght c ontinues to ap p ly ‘ ate ve r y s ta g e o fa c r i m i na lpr o ce eding w here subst anti alr i ghts ofa c rim i nalacc used m ay be affecte d.’ ”) , quoting M e m pa v . Rhay, 38 9 U .S. 128, 13 4 ( 1967 )
. A cr i m i naldefend an t h as the r i ght t o counsel thro ugh hi s fi rs t a pp ealo fr i ght, but once that appeal has be en d ec ided, the r i ght no l onge r appli es. S ee K itch en , 22 7 F
. 3d at 1018 , ci ti ng Pen ns yl vani a v. Fin l ey, 481 U
. S. 55 1, 55 7 ( 198 7); E vit ts v. Luc ey, 46 9 U.S
. 38 7, 39 6 (19 85 ); R oss v. M offi tt, 41 7 U.S
. 60 0, 60 7 (1 974)
. Because K i tchen’ s m oti on was fi l ed afterthe c ri m i nalpro ceedi ngs had been ini ti ate d against hi m but before hi s di re ct appeal had bee n deci ded , we hel d that his r i ght t o co un s e la t t a c he d t o h i s mo t i o n f o ra n e w t r i a l

. S ee K itch en , 22 7 F
. 3d at 1018

- 19. W est m or el and al so fi l ed h is m ot i o n aft er cr im in al p ro c ee d in gs ag ain sth im had been ini ti ate d but b efore hi s di re ct a pp ealwas deci ded. Thus, l i k e Ki tc he n, W es tmor el an d ha d a r i g ht to co u n se l for h is m ot ion for n ew tria l.N o. 10

- 3961 25 Butthe a na l y si s do es notend the r e. Yes , W es tmor el an d h ad a r i ght t o counsel, but Westm o relan d h a d co un sel

. He asked his coun s e l t o r ep resen t him i n h is pu rsu it ofa new tr i al, but hi s co unselr efused. It is w el les tabl i shed th a ta d e fe n d a n t ’ s r i g h tt o c o u n s e ld o e s n o tg i v e h i m a r i g htt o f o r ce hi s co unsel to m ak e ev ery po ss ibl e no nfri volous argu m en t t h a t cou ld be m ad e on h is behalf. Se e Jo nes v. B a rnes , 4 63 U
. S. 745, 751 (1983 ) (“N either A nd ers [ v. Cal i f or ni a, 38 6 U.S
. 73 8 ( 1967 ) ] norany other deci si on ofthis Courtsugg est s . . . a const i tuti onalr i ght t o com pel appoint ed counsel to press nonfri vol ous poi nts re quested bythe cl i ent, i fco unsel, as a m att ero fpro fessional j ud gm en t, d ecid es not to prese nt those point s.”)
. W estm oreland ’s argum en t the refore i s bette r un d erst o o d no t i n t er m s o fa d en ial o fc o uns elb uta s ana r g um ent that hi s co unsel ’ s r efusalto pursue the a rgum ents i n hi s m oti on fora new t ria l am ounted to i neffecti ve assistan ce of coun sel. Th e fac t that W estm oreland ’s argu m en ts, w he n th ey w ere hea rd , w ere hea rd as pa rt of h is p ro se m ot ion fo r a n e w t ria l d oe s n otp er m it h im to re fra m e a n i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o f c ounselcl ai m as a co m ple te denia lo fco unsel

. Th u s, to pre vai l, W est
m or el an d m u st sat i sfy the r equi re m ents ofSt r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 668, 687( 1984 ). U nd er St r i ck

land, W es tmor el an d m us t sh o w tha t hi s co uns el ’ s per form an c e w as d efic ien t, m ea n i n g th at it w as u n re as on ab le und erpre vai l i ng pro fess i onalnor m s. I fhe c ould m ake that showing, he woul d al so have to show that he w as prej ud i ced by the defi ci ency. T h ou g h t h e re c or d is n otw ell d ev elo p ed on th is poi nt, we doubt thatW est m or el and’s counsel ’ s deci si on26 N o. 10

- 3961 to refu s e t o p u rs u e W es tm or ela n d ’s a rg u m en ts in f av o ro fa n ew t r i alwas a ny th i ngo th ertha n a r ea so nabl e st r ateg i c ch o i ce . Bute ve n i fW es tmor el an d w er e s om ehow abl e t o ove rco m e t hat hurdl e, he ha s n o tsh o w n p r eju d ic e . H is a r g u m e n tis th a th e w a s p r ejud i ced beca use hi s m oti on fo r new tr i alhad m er i t. Those a rgum ents have now bee n devel oped on a pp eal b y h i g h l y c a p ab l e a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l

. We h a v e e x a min ed th os e a rg u m en ts an d affirm th e d ist ric t c ou r t in fi nd i ng tha t a new tr i alwas not w ar ra nted. W i thout a m er i to r i o us a r g um entf o ra ne w tr i al, W es tmor el an d cannot show prej ud ice, and w i thout prej ud i ce, he c annot sh ow th at h is c ou n se l’s p er for m an c e w as d efic ien t in re fusi ng to pre sent hi s a rgum ents. A ccor dingl y, wh ether fas h ion ed as an ine f fec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l cla im oras a ri ght t o counselcl ai m , hi s cl ai m st i l lf ai l s. A FFI RMED .

3- 25- 13