Opinion ID: 2901150
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Newly-discovered perjury

Text: Schneider next asserts that he should be granted a new trial based on his discovery that the victim perjured himself in connection with the civil trial. The District Court rejected this argument, which we review for abuse of discretion. Salahuddin, 765 F.3d at 346. Schneider contends that here we should use the test from Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928), to determine whether he should be granted a new trial. This test has three prongs:
the testimony given by a material witness is false. (b) That without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion. (c) That the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after the trial. Larrison, 24 F.2d at 87-88. Not only has “[t]he Larrison test . . . not been adopted by this Court,” Gov’t of V.I. v. Lima, 774 F.2d 1245, 1251 n.4 (3d Cir. 1985), but even the Seventh Circuit has subsequently abandoned it, United States v. Mitrione, 357 F.3d 712, 718 (7th Cir. 2004) (“Today, we overrule Larrison and adopt the reasonable probability test.”), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005). Therefore, we use the same five-factor test from Quiles identified above. 618 F.3d at 388-89. Schneider says that he discovered “notes taken by a professional quoting the lone accuser saying that he committed perjury in relation to the same case, fears going to prison if found out, and is concerned that the conviction will be overturned.” Appellant’s Br. at 65-66. His argument fails at least on the fifth prong—“[the newly discovered evidence] 30 must be such, and of such nature, as that, on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal.” Quiles, 618 F.3d at 388-89 (internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence of this alleged perjury that Schneider complains of consists of the victim’s psychologist’s notes and summaries of sessions in May and June 2012. These notes and summaries describe the victim’s worry about minor inconsistencies in the civil case and the victim’s trial strategy. Schneider’s argument is unavailing. First, Schneider is unable to identify any specific alleged perjury. Further, when these excerpts are placed in context of the overall timeline of the civil case, it becomes clear that there is no perjury and that the victim was concerned about inaccuracies in his testimony about Susan Schneider,4 Kenneth Schneider’s sister, in a civil case deposition. As noted above, the victim sued Schneider, Schneider’s parents, Schneider’s siblings, and the Apogee Foundation5 in a civil suit. The victim was first deposed in connection with this suit on February 28, 2012, where he discussed, among other things, Schneider’s sister. In April 2012, he spoke with his initial attorney about the civil case, and expressed his concerns about his testimony in the civil case to his psychologist in May 2012. The psychologist’s notes were obtained by the defense on August 3, 2012, and turned over to the victim’s new attorneys shortly 4 Susan Schneider was not a party to the criminal prosecution and did not testify in connection with the criminal prosecution. 5 The Apogee Foundation is Schneider’s purported charitable foundation for gifted children in the fine arts. The victim was nominally a board member of the foundation. 31 thereafter. A few days later, the victim, through his attorneys, provided two points of errata to correct his February deposition regarding statements he previously had attributed to Susan Schneider. See Supp. App. at 59-69. Given this context, it appears that the victim’s comments to his psychologist concern testimony he gave about Susan Schneider’s comments, and do not constitute testimony that would rise to the level of perjury which would be “of such nature, as that, on a new trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal.” Quiles, 618 F.3d at 388-89 (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, the psychologist’s notes are also strongly corroborative of the victim’s testimony at trial. They include statements about Schneider’s predatory and abusive relationship with the victim. App. at 2325. Because the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to hold an evidentiary hearing on or grant Schneider’s motion for a new trial based on the newlydiscovered “perjury,” we will affirm the District Court’s ruling.