Opinion ID: 270981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether a new trial should have been granted because of newly discovered evidence

Text: 62 Abrams alleges that the trial judge committed error by refusing to grant a post-verdict motion for a new trial made on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Rule 33, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This evidence consisted of two letters and an affidavit sent to the court by Louis Carmick, who had formerly been an officer of Automatic. Carmick had always been available as a witness and the appellants chose not to call him. The motion was properly denied. 63 It has long been held in this circuit that    a defendant seeking a new trial under any theory must satisfy the district court that the material asserted to be newly discovered is in fact such and could not with due diligence have been discovered before or, at the latest, at the trial. United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876, 879 (2 Cir.1958), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 937, 78 S.Ct. 1385, 2 L.Ed.2d 1551 (1958); United States v. Pellegrino, 273 F.2d 570, 572 (2 Cir. 1960). 64 As for Carmick's opinions that Abrams is    candid, blunt and completely honest, that the trial resulted in    a gross miscarriage of justice and that Abrams    honestly gave with full sincerity a great deal of his time and effort to help Automatic Washer in its difficulties, these are nothing more than conclusory statements and not evidence. 65 VIII. WHETHER ALBERT'S RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY WAS VIOLATED BY AN OPENING STATEMENT MADE BY KNOHL'S COUNSEL; WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A MISTRIAL 66 Albert asserts that his constitutional right not to take the stand and testify was violated by a statement made by Knohl's counsel that Albert would explain Knohl's acts and absolve him when Albert took the stand and testified. He claims that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after this occurred. 67 The record shows, however, that Knohl's counsel had been led to believe that Albert would take the stand by what Albert and Albert's attorney had told him. 68 The trial commenced on September 4, 1963. The court permitted defense counsel to make their opening statements at the conclusion of the government's case. Thus, Mr. Singer, Knohl's counsel, made his opening statement on January 6, 1964. The substance of what he said was that Albert would take the stand and exonerate Knohl; that he would testify exactly how, when and where Automatic stock was delivered to Knohl. Singer argued that whatever Knohl did he did on the word of Albert. 69 Albert's counsel did not object and Singer continued with his statement. It was only after the following recess and before the jury was brought in that Albert's counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion. Albert's counsel requested no instruction to the jury. 70 Albert did not testify, nor did Knohl. Before his summation, Singer requested permission to clarify the remarks made in the opening statement that Albert would exculpate Knohl. The court permitted this reference to Albert's failure to take the stand for the limited purpose of allowing Singer to show why he could not exonerate Knohl in the manner he had promised in his opening, namely, through Albert's testimony. 71 The trial court fully instructed the jury that a defendant was not required to testify and that his failure to do so could not support any inference of guilt against him. The court said: 72 When several defendants are on trial together as in this case, each of them has this right not to testify even if one of the other defendants would like to call him as a witness. I instruct you specifically that you may not draw any inferences or presumptions of any sort favorable or unfavorable from the circumstance that Mr. Singer, Mr. Knohl's attorney, told you in his opening, that he would question Mr. Albert about certain transactions if Mr. Albert took the witness stand; and then, as you know, Mr. Albert ultimately saw fit not to take the witness stand and testify. You should not hold this against Mr. Albert since, as I have already explained to you, it is his right and it is the right of each of the defendants not to testify. 73 Because Albert was responsible for the reference he now objects to and because there was neither objection nor request for a limiting instruction, we think that Albert cannot be heard to complain that his right not to take the stand was violated by the comment of Knohl's counsel. 74