Opinion ID: 12937
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Allegedly Erroneous Evidentiary Ruling

Text: Finally, Mulderig contends that the district court erred when it admitted a 1988 affidavit in which Mulderig asserted that he was liable only for attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs associated with an $850,000 guaranty for the Dermul loan, and not the enti re $850,000. The district court also declined to take judicial notice of Gulf’s civil suit against Mulderig in which the district court held that Mulderig was liable for the entire $850,000 guaranty. We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Asibor, 109 F.3d 1023, 1032 (5th Cir. 1997). In deciding to admit the 1988 affidavit, the district court analyzed the relevancy of the affidavit pursuant to Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and concluded that it was relevant because it tended to show Mulderig’s state of mind at the time he executed the guaranty; the district court also excluded as irrelevant the decision in the civil suit. See Gulf Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Mulderig, 742 F. Supp. 358 (E.D. La. 1989). We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion because we simply fail to see how a subsequent judicial determination of liability on the $850,000 guaranty is relevant to Mulderig’s state of mind at the time he executed that guaranty. 9 In sum, Mulderig argues that even if no single claim entitles him to relief, the sum of the legal errors committed by the district court equals a denial of a fair trial. Our arithmetic, however, is somewhat different. We have concluded that none of Mulderig’s challenges to the district court’s legal conclusions has merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that Mulderig received a fair trial. V. THE DISTRICT COURT’S DENIAL OF MULDERIG’S THIRD POST-TRIAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL Mulderig spent two years after he was convicted trying to get his convictions on Counts 1-3 reversed. Mulderig filed three post-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal in the district court, and we must determine whether the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over the third and final motion. Relying on Carlisle v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1460 (1996), the district court concluded that “Carlisle is controlling on the issue before the Court as Carlisle states in clear and forceful language that a district court must strictly adhere to the time limits set forth in Rule 29. The Court finds that the facts of the present case are indistinguishable from the facts of Carlisle and that defendant’s motions are therefore barred by the time limits of Rule 29(c).” Mulderig contends that the district court erroneously relied on Carlisle for its conclusion that his third—in Mulderig’s words, “renewed”—motion was time-barred. We note at the outset that there is some ambiguity about whether Mulderig’s third post-trial motion really sought two alternative remedies (i.e., judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 or new trial pursuant to Rule 33). For example, Mulderig’s motion did not reference Rule 33 at all and did not explicitly state that he wanted a new trial; rather, Mulderig sought complete relief—an outright acquittal on Counts 1-3. During the hearing on the motion, however, Mulderig and the Government spent some time arguing about whether the evidence proffered by Mulderig was in fact “newly discovered,” a requirement found in Rule 33. Under the circumstances, we conclude that Mulderig asserted both a Rule 29(c) motion for judgment of acquittal and a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. It is less clear still whether the district court actually ruled on Mulderig’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial. 10 Although the district court itself characterized Mulderig’s third motion as a motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial (thus implicating Rule 29 and Rule 33), the district court did not distinguish between the two remedies in its determination of whether it had jurisdiction to grant a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. In fact, in its written order denying the motion, the district court did not even mention Rule 33 or refer specifically to Mulderig’s claim of newly discovered evidence. Moreover, Rule 29 and Rule 33 differ in one significant respect for purposes of this appeal: the seven-day time period for Rule 33 motions not based on newly discovered evidence is identical to the seven-day time period in Rule 29. However, Rule 33 motions based on newly discovered evidence are not governed by a seven-day time frame; rather, a defendant has two years to file such a motion. Plainly, whether or not Mulderig’s Rule 33 motion is premised on newly discovered evidence is critical because two different time limitations are potentially triggered. Because the parties argued at length about Mulderig’s alleged newly discovered evidence, we construe the district court’s denial of Mulderig’s third motion as holding that the evidence proffered by Mulderig was not newly discovered, thus triggering t he seven-day time limit in Rule 33. Accordingly, we hold as follows: (1) we affirm the district court’s conclusion that under Carlisle, Mulderig’s Rule 29(c) motion for judgment of acquittal is time-barred; (2) the district court erred in concluding that the evidence presented in the third motion was not newly discovered; and (3) the district court’s error is not fatal to the Government because the failure to discover the new evidence prior to or during trial was the result of a lack of due diligence on Mulderig’s part. A. Rule 29(c) and Carlisle Before we address the question of whether the district court erred in its application of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlisle, we first present a brief chronology of the post-trial legal wrangling leading up to Mulderig’s third, post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal. 11
On November 3, 1994, Mulderig was convicted on all counts in which he was charged (Counts 1-3, 5, 7, and 8). On November 10, 1994, Mulderig moved for an extension of time within which to file a post-trial Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal. The district court granted the motion and gave Mulderig until November 29, 1994 to file the motion. The parties do not dispute that this motion for an extension of time was filed within the seven-day time frame prescribed by Rule 29 and that the district court had jurisdiction to grant such an extension. The Rule 29 motion was timely filed and subsequently denied on February 2, 1995. Exactly three months after the district court denied Mulderig’s first Rule 29 motion, Mulderig moved for leave to subpoena records in the custody of the New Orleans law firm of Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittman and Hutchinson, which represented federal bank regulators in civil litigation involving Gulf Federal. The district court granted the motion on May 24, 1995. That same day, Mulderig sought leave to file a second Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal as to Counts 1-3. On June 23, 1995, the district court granted Mulderig leave to file the motion and continued Mulderig’s sentencing pending our en banc consideration of United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 736 (1997). Mulderig’s second motion was denied on July 27, 1995. On August 22, 1995, with leave from the district court, Mulderig “renewed” his second posttrial motion for judgment of acquittal as to Counts 1 and 2. On September 14, 1995, this motion was denied. On July 16, 1996, following our en banc decision in Crouch, the district court ruled that Mulderig’s renewed motion for judgment of acquittal was moot, and sentencing was scheduled for September 4, 1996. Not to be deterred, on August 8, 1996, Mulderig moved for leave to subpoena records in the custody of federal bank regulators. That motion was granted on August 30, 1996. On October 16, 1996, Mulderig filed a third, post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal as to Counts 1-3. This time, Mulderig argued that evidence discovered pursuant to the bank regulator subpoenas was newly 12 discovered and demonstrated his innocence on Counts 1-3. The district court, however, denied the motion on the ground that the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlisle divested it of jurisdiction to rule on Mulderig’s third, post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal.
We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to entertain Mulderig’s third po st-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. See Matter of Advisory Comm. of Major Funding Corp., 109 F.3d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 1997). We conclude that the district court was correct. Rule 29 states that a motion for judgment of acquittal “may be made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c) (emphasis added). In Carlisle, the defendant filed a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal ten days aft er he was convicted and the jury was discharged. The Supreme Court strictly construed the seven-day time limitation in Rule 29 and held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion. 116 S. Ct. at 1464. The Carlisle Court’s adm onition to lower courts was plain enough: These Rules [i.e., Rules 29 and 45(b)] are plain enough. If, as in this case, a guilty verdict is returned, a motion for judgment of acquittal must be filed, either within seven days of the jury’s discharge, or within an extended period fixed by the court during that 7-day period. There is simply no room in the text of Rules 29 and 45(b) for the granting of an untimely postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal, regardless of whether the motion is accompanied by a claim of legal innocence, is filed before sentencing, or was filed late because of attorney error. Id. at 1464 (emphasis added). A straightforward application of Carlisle compels the conclusion that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider any of Mulderig’s post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal after the district court granted Mulderig an extension to time (until November 29, 1994) to file his (first) post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal—an extension of time that was properly granted within the seven-day period specified in Rule 29. The district court therefore did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over Mulderig’s third, post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal, filed almost 13 two years after the jury convicted him. We shall not address in any detail Mulderig’s (wholly unpersuasive) arguments to the contrary, except to say that Mulderig’s creative attempts to circumvent the unambiguous teaching of Carlisle simply rehash arguments that were rejected in Carlisle and border on “mak[ing] a farce” of the time limitations in Rule 29(c). Carlisle, 116 S. Ct. at 1464. B. Rule 33 and the So-Called “Newly Discovered” Evidence The district court’s ruling regarding Mulderig’s Rule 33 motion stands on a somewhat different footing. As we have repeatedly said, “[m]otions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored by the courts and therefore are viewed with great caution.” United States v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 180, 182-83 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and citations omitted). As such, we have erected a relatively difficult standard—known as the “Berry Rule”—that defendants must meet to obtain a new trial. Mulderig must show (1) that the evidence was newly discovered and unknown to the defendant at the time of trial, (2) that his failure to discover the evidence was not the result of a lack of due diligence, (3) the evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) the evidence will probably produce an acquittal. United States v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d at 183 (quoting United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 181 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 933, 115 S.Ct. 327, 130 L.Ed.2d 287 (1994). Mulderig claims that the following pieces of “newly discovered” evidence demonstrate his innocence on Counts 1-3: (1) files from loan officer Farley “demonstrate conclusively” that the February 1985 cover letter (allegedly attached to the July 1984 financial statement) was sent to Gulf Federal in connection with an $800,000 construction loan that was separate and apart from the K & K loan at issue in the indictment; thus, argues Mulderig, he was wrongly convicted of submitting a false financial statement to government regulators (Count 2);2 (2) although the jury was led to believe that the July 1984 financial statement was the “only” statement found in Gulf Federal’s files, documents discovered post-trial (from Farley’s desk) suggest that Gulf Federal’s files were purged, thereby rendering 2 Mulderig also claims that because the conspiracy charge in Count 1 included the filing of the July 1984 financial statement, his conviction on Count 1 should also be reversed. 14 unreasonable the inference that the July 1984 statement was attached to the February 1985 cover letter; and (3) an internal memorandum from Gulf Federal’s insurers purportedly establishes that Mulderig was wrongly convicted on Count 3 because the second mortgage requirement on the Nel Place loan was “waived” by Gulf Federal officials prior to the loan closing. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in part as follows: A motion for new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, . . . A motion for new trial based on any other grounds shall be made within 7 days after verdict or finding of guilty or within such further time as the court may fix during the 7-day period. (Emphasis added.) The district court concluded that the three pieces of evidence we have outlined above were not newly discovered, thereby subjecting Mulderig to the seven-day time limit. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court erred in so concluding because the evidence uncovered through the August 1996 subpoena was unknown to Mulderig at trial; it is therefore “newly discovered,” thereby triggering the two-year time limit in Rule 33. And because Mulderig’s third post-trial motion was filed within two years after the jury returned verdicts of guilt on Counts 1-3, Mulderig’s Rule 33 motion was timely. However, we hold that Mulderig’s failure to unearth the newly discovered evidence was due to a lack of due diligence on his part. For the second time in recent memory, we are presented with defense claims of government foul play in a paper-intensive criminal prosecution for violations of federal banking laws. In United States v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d 180, we held that defense counsel’s claim of due diligence failed largely because defense counsel was made well aware early in the trial of the Government’s theory of criminal intent, yet did not at all investigate a key Government theory of guilt. Id. at 183. The reasoning in Sullivan applies with equal force here.3 As to the first two pieces of evidence, our review of the record convinces us that the issue of whether Mulderig actually submitted the July 1984 financial statement in February 1985 was hotly contested. Mulderig knew from the day the indictment was handed down that Count 1 included as 3 We express no opinion on whether the newly discovered evidence demonstrates Mulderig’s innocence on Counts 1-3. 15 part of the conspiracy the filing of the July 1984 statement as part of the conspiracy, and that the sole indictable offense in Count 2 was the filing of the (false) July 1984 K & K financial statement in order to paper the record for the Cypress Park loan. In addition, Mulderig’s own attorney at a side-bar conference stated that “Mr. Farley is one of the most important witnesses in this case.” Yet, Mulderig’s attorneys never expressed surprise when the incriminating evidence came in, never sought a continuance to explore the matter further,4 and never sought to obtain every document (in a document-intensive prosecution) from, in Mulderig’s own words, “one of the most important witnesses in this case.” We find a lack of due diligence here. See, e.g., United States v. Sullivan, 112 F.3d at 183. Our conclusion is the same with regard to the third piece of newly discovered evidence. There can be no doubt that throughout this trial the issue of whether Mulderig was required to provide a second mortgage to secure the Nel Place loan was repeatedly raised. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the issue of whether certain loan requirements could be waived was also the subject of testimony presented to the jury. But as with the first two pieces of newly discovered evidence, the failure to provide a second mortgage to secure the Nel Place loan was charged in the indictment, Mulderig showed no surprise at the introduction of evidence about the second mortgage requirement, did not seek a continuance, and did not investigate the waiver issue further. We conclude that Mulderig’s failure to discover an alleged waiver of the second mortgage requirement resulted from a lack of due diligence on his part.