Opinion ID: 658851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supplementary Omaha Police Division Report

Text: 19 After the defendants received the Omaha police division supplementary report (the report) indicating that Lue had confessed to the hotel robbery and refused to name his accomplices, the defendants moved for a new trial. Reeves and Kern claim that the report exonerated them and hence a new trial should have been granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 (Rule 33). Furthermore, they claim that Brady mandates a new trial because the knowledge of the Omaha police regarding this report should be imputed to the federal prosecutor. We do not agree that the new evidence exonerated the defendants or that the prosecutor withheld evidence from the defendants. 20 Rule 33 allows a court to grant a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence if the evidence is, in fact, discovered since trial; the court may infer the movant has been diligent; the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; the evidence is material; and the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal. United States v. Gustafson, 728 F.2d 1078, 1084 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 979, 105 S.Ct. 380, 83 L.Ed.2d 315 (1984); see also United States v. Wang, 964 F.2d 811, 813 (8th Cir.1992) (new trial may be granted if the defendant's substantial rights are affected). The defendants' argument fails because the report did not exonerate them; that is, it would not have been likely to have produced an acquittal. As stated by the district court, the report 4 would merely have given the jury some additional information to evaluate in determining whether or not Mr. Ashford had indeed properly identified the two defendants as being participants. Tr. at 766. Had this evidence been presented to the jury, the jury could reasonably have believed that Reeves and Kern were Lue's accomplices and that Lue was merely protecting them by denying their participation in the hotel robbery. The jury could also have inferred that Ashford improperly identified Reeves and Kern as participants in the hotel robbery. The district court, however, found that this latter possibility did not warrant a new trial. Particularly in light of the amount of evidence presented to the jury on the issue of the defendants' guilt, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendants' motion for a new trial. See Gustafson, 728 F.2d at 1084. 21 Nor does Brady mandate a new trial in this case. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87-88, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97. A defendant's due process rights are violated under Brady if a prosecutor withholds evidence on demand of an accused which, if made available, would tend to exculpate him or reduce the penalty. Id. In order to establish such a claim, the prosecutor must have suppressed or withheld evidence that was both favorable and material to the defense. Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 794, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 2568, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972). Nothing in this record indicates that this prosecutor withheld evidence from the defendants. Here, the prosecutor simply did not have the report until the trial was over. Such a case is fundamentally different than when information is in the prosecutor's files. See State v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2400, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). We do not accept the defendants' proposal that we impute the knowledge of the State of Nebraska to a federal prosecutor. See United States v. Walker, 720 F.2d 1527, 1535 (11th Cir.1983) (refusing to impute the knowledge of state officials to a federal prosecutor), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1108, 104 S.Ct. 1614, 80 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984). Consequently, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to grant a new trial. 22 Finally, we find wholly without merit Kern's contention that conspiracy to commit bank robbery is not a crime of violence as defined by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 16, and we reaffirm our previous holding to that effect. See United States v. Johnson, 962 F.2d 1308, 1311 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 358, 121 L.Ed.2d 271 (1992), and cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1418, 122 L.Ed.2d 788 (1993).