Opinion ID: 856073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timing of the Affair

Text: With his motion for a new trial, Westmoreland presented affidavits of three witnesses who stated that the affair between Milkovich and Bronnie Westmoreland began during Milkovich’s investigation — not after the investigation had concluded, as Bronnie testified at trial. Amy Wade, Greg Schmidt, and Tina Kuehl all swore that they had witnessed encounters between Milkovich and Bronnie in 1998. Amy Wade stated that in May 1998, she and Bronnie went dancing all night with Milkovich. Greg Schmidt, a neighbor, testified that in August 1998, 10 No. 10-3961 he saw Milkovich visit Bronnie on several occasions, staying for several hours, sometimes overnight, with Milkovich sometimes leaving with different clothes than he had worn when he arrived. On one occasion Schmidt saw Bronnie and Milkovich kiss. The third affiant, Tina Kuehl, is Westmoreland’s sister. She stated that in March 1998, she went into Bronnie’s home and saw Milkovich and Bronnie leaving Bronnie’s bedroom as Milkovich was tucking in his shirt. Kuehl’s testimony was not “new” — she submitted an affidavit in 2001, before the murder trial — but the trial court doubted Kuehl’s credibility because of her relationship to Westmoreland and because Kuehl had assisted Bronnie in destroying evidence.1 Westmoreland concedes that Kuehl’s evidence is not new, but he argues that Wade’s and Schmidt’s evidence is new. He argues that the district court’s negative assessment of Kuehl’s credibility was the reason he did not anticipate or discover earlier that other witnesses could corroborate Kuehl’s testimony, and it was only after trial, when Wade and Schmidt came forward, that Kuehl’s statement had any force. Westmoreland concludes that if this corroborating evidence had come to light earlier, it 1 Before trial, on May 18, 2001, Westmoreland submitted a document to the district court captioned “Ex Parte Supplemental Response To Government’s Motion In Limine Regarding Milkovich/Bronnie Westmoreland Relationship.” In it, he asserted that he had a witness, presumably Kuehl, with information that Milkovich and Bronnie were together as early as February or March 1998. No. 10-3961 11 likely would have led to his acquittal because it would have suggested to the jury that Milkovich’s part of the murder investigation had been corrupted by the affair. Westmoreland’s argument shows one of its fatal flaws. For the court to treat the Wade and Schmidt affidavits as new evidence, Westmoreland must dem- onstrate that they could not have been discovered sooner through the exercise of due diligence. Before his trial began, Westmoreland knew of the facts underlying the affidavits. He knew of the affair, and he believed that it had begun earlier than the government and Bronnie said it did. Though he may have thought at the time that it was not worthwhile to pursue other witnesses who could corroborate his sister, he does not argue that he could not have discovered such witnesses sooner, only that he chose not to try. That is not due diligence. See United States v. Theodosopoulos, 48 F.3d 1438, 1449 (7th Cir. 1995) (witness’s post-trial affidavit was not “newly discovered” where defendant failed to exercise due diligence; defendant took no steps to secure witness’s testimony but instead sought a missing witness instruction); United States v. McGaughey, 977 F.2d 1067, 1075 (7th Cir. 1992) (failure to conduct exhaustive search for document showed lack of necessary due diligence). This was not newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. Westmoreland also fails to show that he likely would have been acquitted if the jury had heard that Milkovich’s affair overlapped with his investigation. There is no doubt that Milkovich’s behavior tainted the 12 No. 10-3961 government’s case, and the longer the affair, the more extensive we can assume the taint would have been. We are not persuaded, though, that evidence of a longer affair would have led to acquittal. The jury that convicted Westmoreland of Mrs. Abeln’s murder learned that Milkovich and Bronnie had had an affair. Westmoreland has not identified any particular evidence against him that should be deemed less credible or probative if the affair began back in the spring of 1998, which would still have been several months after Mrs. Abeln’s murder. It is highly doubtful that the outcome of the murder trial would have been any different if the jury had heard evidence — evidence that was disputed by the government — that the affair had begun while Milkovich was still investigating the case. In sum, the Wade and Schmidt affidavits also are not “newly discovered evidence” that would warrant a new trial.2