Opinion ID: 431903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bruins' Motion for a New Trial

Text: 19 Bruins asserts that because Gustafson and Agosto agreed, after trial, to give information to the government in exchange for a more lenient sentence, newly discovered evidence now exists that would justify granting him a new trial. Bruins submits that now Gustafson and Agosto would not try to implicate him in their crime and their testimony would be much more credible as they are now on the government's side. Bruins argues that since this was unavailable during the first trial, it constitutes newly discovered evidence. 20 This court has set forth the criteria for granting a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence on numerous occasions. Before such a motion can be granted, the following five criteria must be met: 21 (1) the evidence must be in fact newly discovered, that is, discovered since the trial; (2) facts must be alleged from which the court may infer diligence on the part of the movant; (3) the evidence relied upon must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) it must be material to the issues involved; and (5) it must be of such nature that, on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal. 22 United States v. Swarek, 677 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 723, 74 L.Ed.2d 949 (1983). It is also well settled that such motions are looked upon with disfavor and we will not overturn the trial court's decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Pope, 415 F.2d 685 (8th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 950, 90 S.Ct. 973, 25 L.Ed.2d 132 (1970). 23 We find that the showing made in support of the motion for new trial does not satisfy the criteria set out in Swarek. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.