Opinion ID: 788373
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Second Berry Factor: due diligence

Text: 47 Evidence that is unknown at the time of trial cannot be the basis for granting a new trial if the defendant should have known of its existence through the exercise of due diligence. Wall did not know that McDowell was going to testify regarding a meeting in Chicago; however, McDowell's testimony occurred on the third day of a two-week trial. 10 Thus, Wall became aware of the potential significance of testimony from Ristau and/or Hartwig early in the trial. Nevertheless, their affidavits were not produced until after the trial. 48 When a defendant becomes aware of evidence early in a trial, it is incumbent upon the defendant to seek a continuance or demonstrate efforts to obtain the evidence before it will be considered newly discovered. See United States v. Mulderig, 120 F.3d 534, 546 (5th Cir.1997) (failure to investigate or seek a continuance on government's theory constitutes lack of due diligence); Sullivan, 112 F.3d at 183 (defense counsel was made well aware of government's theory of intent early in trial, yet did not investigate this theory); United States v. Pena, 949 F.2d 751, 758 (5th Cir.1991) (defendant was aware of alleged new evidence regarding a witness' drug and alcohol problems [a]t trial, if not before); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251 (11th Cir.1990) (defendants were on notice of witnesses cooperation with government midway through the trial). 49 During the trial, Wall did not have physically within his possession statements from Ristau and Hartwig denying that the Chicago meeting took place. However, as soon as McDowell testified that he participated in a meeting with Wall, Ristau, and Hartwig, Wall possessed all the information necessary to begin looking for the newly discovered evidence. See Villarreal, 324 F.3d at 326 (defense counsel's failure to appreciate the significance of impeachment testimony constituted a lack of diligence). McDowell testified that Wall was present at a conspiratorial meeting in Chicago. Wall denied that such a meeting took place. Assuming that Wall's testimony was true, Wall knew during the trial that McDowell's statement was false and that Ristau and Hartwig could corroborate his contention that no such meeting took place. It was incumbent upon Wall to take measures to secure the testimony of Ristau and/or Hartwig. See Sullivan, 112 F.3d at 183 (upholding district court's finding that defendant lacked due diligence where adverse witness testified at the beginning of trial). In fact, the district court noted that Wall gave no reason why these witnesses were not subpoenaed after McDowell's testimony. This court and others have found no abuse of discretion where district courts found that due diligence was lacking because defendant gained knowledge of the new evidence during trial but failed to seek a continuance or subpoena witnesses. See Mulderig, 120 F.3d at 546 (defendant failed to seek continuance to explore the matter of new evidence); Sullivan, 112 F.3d at 183 (defendants failed to seek continuance); United States v. DeLuca, 137 F.3d 24, 40 (1st Cir.1998) (defendant failed to seek continuance or invoke compulsory process); see also McBride, 862 F.2d at 1319 (holding that in reviewing a motion for new trial, [c]ounsel cannot stand idly by, permit the presentation of erroneous matter at trial, and then complain about the inclusion of that evidence in the trial record, absent plain error.). By the same token, in light of the fact that the district court specifically found no reason proffered as to why Wall did not locate Ristau and Hartwig during the course of trial, the district court erred in concluding that Wall satisfied the due diligence factor under Berry. 50