Opinion ID: 43175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pinchon

Text: As to Pinchon’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, we review “challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000). The jury has the exclusive power to determine the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1351 (11th Cir. 1999) “In order to obtain a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the Government must establish the existence of three elements: (1) knowledge (of one's possession); (2) possession of a controlled substance; and (3) intent to distribute that substance.” United States v. Wilson, 183 F.3d 1291, 1299 n. 13 4 (11th Cir. 1999). To obtain a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must “show (1) the existence of an agreement, (2) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (3) possession, (4) intent to distribute, and (5) a controlled substance.” United States v. Boldin, 772 F.2d 719, 727 (11th Cir. 1985). In the instant case, the government presented a videotape depicting the drug transaction that resulted in Pinchon’s convictions. On appeal, Pinchon and the government make contrary arguments about whether the seller’s identity could be ascertained from this tape. But it was within the province of the jury, after reviewing the videotape itself, to accept the government’s version and reject Pinchon’s. Even assuming that the videotape did not establish Pinchon’s guilt, however, the trial testimony alone was sufficient to support knowing possession with intent to distribute under § 841, conspiracy under § 846, and a guilty verdict. Because the government presented testimony that, if credited, would justify Pinchon’s convictions, the evidence was sufficient to justify the jury’s guilty verdict. Chastain, 198 F.3d at 1351.
As to Pinchon’s argument that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial, we review the denial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ettinger, 344 F.3d 1149, 1161 (11th Cir. 2003). 5 A defendant must meet five requirements to be entitled to a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence: (1) the evidence must be discovered following trial; (2) the movant must show due diligence to discover the evidence; (3) the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence must be material to issues before the court; and (5) the evidence must be of such a nature that a new trial would probably produce a new result. United States v. Di Bernardo, 880 F.2d 1216, 1224 (11th Cir. 1989). Pinchon cannot satisfy the first requirement for obtaining a new trial because he claims to have discovered the new evidence, i.e., that two witnesses were associating, during the trial. Because the evidence upon which Pinchon relies was not discovered “following trial,” he has not met the first requirement for obtaining a new trial, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant his motion. We therefore affirm Pinchon’s convictions. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 6