Opinion ID: 3090871
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion for New Trial (Simpson)

Text: Simpson next argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial, based on the newly disclosed fact that AT&T was being sued by the United States for fraudulent billing for international phone calls made by Nigerian spammers. He also argues that failure to disclose this 15 Case: 12-10574 Document: 00512501580 Page: 16 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 No. 12-10574 previously sealed lawsuit against AT&T before trial violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Simpson argues that he would have used this evidence to impeach two AT&T witnesses who testified at trial. We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559, 564 (5th Cir. 2011). A claim that the government suppressed material evidence is reviewed de novo, but with appropriate deference to the district court’s factual findings. See United States v. Brown, 650 F.3d 581, 589 (5th Cir. 2011). To either warrant a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or succeed on a Brady claim, Simpson must show that the new or withheld evidence is material. See United States v. Pena, 949 F.2d 752, 758 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Ellender, 947 F.2d 748, 756 (5th Cir. 1991). Simpson does not persuasively argue how the evidence of fraudulent billing by AT&T as a corporate entity is material. He argues that the new evidence lent credence to his assertion to Bandwidth.com, when Bandwidth discovered high international usage by Aston, that Aston could have been Nigerian spammers. However, the evidence in the record shows that what he said to Bandwidth was that Aston was “Nigerian scammers. . . basically,” and that the company was based in Nigeria and had changed its name a lot, when in fact he knew that Aston was a company Faulkner and other co-conspirators were fraudulently impersonating. Further, as the district court stated, the evidence was unlikely to have been impeaching to the two AT&T employees who testified, who were not shown to have any connection to the alleged wrongdoing by AT&T, the corporation. Given that AT&T was one of several companies victimized, Simpson’s argument that this impeaching evidence would somehow have altered the whole course of the trial is not persuasive. The district court’s denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion. 16 Case: 12-10574 Document: 00512501580 Page: 17 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 No. 12-10574