Opinion ID: 199398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post-Trial Motion for Investigative Funds

Text: 46 Arthur claims the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for additional funds under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A to conduct a post-trial investigation. Arthur's counsel told the trial court he needed the funds to find additional witnesses who would cast doubt on Farrell's testimony. Although he knew the name of one witness who was at 161 Intervale Street on the night of the Thomas murder, counsel conceded he was speculating on precisely what [these witnesses] would say. The district court found no evidence to support the conclusion that exculpatory evidence was withheld and denied the motion on that basis alone. 15 A denial of a motion for funds under section 3006A is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. De Jesus, 211 F.3d 153, 155-56 (1st Cir. 2000). We have carefully reviewed the record, and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.