Opinion ID: 1444074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-Trial Motion for New Trial

Text: After being convicted on September 26, 1997, Hilton filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal, or in the alternative, a motion for a new trial, arguing that the evidence against him was insufficient to sustain a conviction and that he should receive a new trial because he was intimidated to testify in front of his co-defendant. The motion noted that Hilton had no impeachable convictions. In the motion Hilton asserted his innocence and explained that Lyons only came into his company after the robbery because Hilton was giving Lyons a ride. If he had testified, Hilton would have explained that he had tried to escape from the police because Lyons told him he had fucked up and had a gun; Hilton also knew he had a shotgun in the back. The motion also asserted that in a separate trial, Hilton would have called others to vouch for his whereabouts at the time of the robbery, but at the joint trial he was afraid to do so and implicate Lyons, his co-defendant. In the motion, defense counsel argued that he was personally hamstrung in presenting witnesses, because any truthful testimony tended to implicate the co-defendant and defeat his defense and that Hilton was not willing to do that. Hilton also would not testify because he refused to support Lyons's defense that he had never been in the Isuzu Rodeo truck. Nor was counsel willing to call witnesses who would testify to Lyons's bogus defense. Counsel pleaded with the court, stating he struggled with this issue throughout trial and that he was gravely concerned that Mr. Hilton has been wrongfully convicted . . . because of the unusual dynamic of this co-defendant trial. In counsel's opinion, Lyons called the shots in this case and he dragged Hilton down with him . . . [and] at a separate trial Mr. Hilton could have offered a convincing alternative to the government's circumstantial case. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, ruling that the evidence was sufficient to convict, and that appellant had not presented specific evidence to support his claim of fear of or intimidation by his co-defendant that required, in the words of the trial court, heightened application of a Geddie [4] analysis. The trial court commented that [d]espite claiming a `fear' [Hilton] never states exactly what he was afraid of, let alone that this fear was triggered by threats, intimidation or duress from co-defendant Lyons. The trial court noted that there was nothing in the trial record to support Hilton's claim that he was afraid and that his pre-trial motion to sever defendants had given a different reason. [5] The court viewed the motion as merely an expression of [Hilton's] counsel's regret over his client's choice of strategy employed at trial, and denied the motion for new trial.