Opinion ID: 583985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence must be discovered only after trial

Text: 36 Mr. Kamel asserts that he did not learn of his brother's complicity in the fire until after the trial was over. 14 Although the record cannot (and we believe need not) confirm that he was absolutely certain of what Mr. Khabbas had done even before the trial started, there is very strong evidence which allowed the district court to conclude that, by the date of the trial, Mr. Kamel had actual knowledge of his brother's responsibility for starting the fire at the store. 15 37 In connection with his motion for a new trial, Mr. Kamel signed a waiver of his attorney-client privilege on January 24, 1990, allowing his trial counsel, Paul Wagner, to discuss with representatives of the government his pre-trial conversations with Mr. Kamel. Mr. Wagner then furnished an affidavit to the court, describing his discussions with Mr. Kamel. Mr. Wagner related that on September 30, 1990--the day before the beginning of the trial--Mr. Kamel revealed the truth of Mr. Khabbas' responsibility for setting the fire. 16 Mr. Wagner further related that he then asked Mr. Kamel directly which version of the facts was true--the earlier one, or the new one implicating his brother. Mr. Wagner stated that Kamel eventually backed off this new version of events, and he did not mention it to me again. 17 38 Further evidence of Mr. Kamel's knowledge of Mr. Khabbas' responsibility is found in an affidavit given by Special Agent Bilik. Describing an interview she had with Mr. Kamel on January 24, 1991, she related that when he arrived at the scene of the fire, Mr. Kamel saw his brother already there and was told by him, in Arabic, to state to the police officer that Mr. Khabbas had been at home at the time the fire broke out. Although he knew that statement was false, Mr. Kamel then told this lie to the police. 18 Despite these facts, Mr. Kamel would ask us to believe not only that he did not know back in December of 1988 of his brother's plan to burn down the store, but also that after being asked to cover up for his brother to the police, he did not ask Mr. Khabbas any further questions in the nearly two years between the date of the fire and the start of the trial. 39 Mr. Kamel's assertions that he merely had suspicions of his brother's responsibility for the fire, and that his actual knowledge of that fact is newly discovered, is contradicted by the evidence in the record. Therefore, we conclude that Mr. Kamel fails the first requirement for a new trial. 40