Opinion ID: 146638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-Trial Developments

Text: On November 14, 2006, Bergmann filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, which the district court denied on January 31, 2007, finding that there had been extensive contradictory testimony on both sides of the issue of Munoz's knowledge. Meanwhile, on January 4, 2007, Bergmann moved to withdraw as counsel, and on February 13, Munoz's current counsel, Martha Hall, filed a notice of appearance. On February 22, 2007, the district court granted Bergmann's motion to withdraw and authorized Hall to appear in Bergmann's stead. Five days later, on February 27, Hall filed a motion to continue sentencing, in which she requested leave to file an untimely Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The next day, the district court granted Hall's request to continue sentencing, but denied Hall's request for leave to file an untimely Rule 33 motion, as Hall had not presented any information from which the Court could conclude that the failure to timely file the motion for new trial was the result of excusable neglect. . . . The district court's denial, however, was without prejudice to Hall's submission of such a motion for the court's consideration and address[ing] the issue of excusable neglect therein. . . . On May 8, 2007six months after the verdict, and about ten weeks after Hall's appearanceHall filed an untimely Rule 33 motion which addressed the issue of excusable neglect. As for the motion's merits, Hall argued that Bergmann had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. [1] On June 21, 2007, the district court held an evidentiary hearing. There, Munoz's sister testified that, among other things, she had contacted Bergmann and volunteered to testify as a character witness at Munoz's trial or to put Bergmann in touch with other potential character witnesses, but Bergmann had summarily rejected her offer. Bergmann was present at the evidentiary hearing, and Hall initially indicated that she intended to put him on the stand. However, after the government pointed out that calling Bergmann to testify might waive the attorney-client privilege between Munoz and Bergmann, Hall elected not to do so. After an off-the-record discussion, both parties stipulated that Bergmann did not hire a professional investigator as part of his trial preparation. On March 2, 2009, the district court granted Munoz's Rule 33 motion, set aside the jury's verdict, and ordered a new trial, holding that Bergmann had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Munoz, No. 4:06-cr-23-2, 2009 WL 529859 (E.D.Tenn. Mar.2, 2009). The government timely appealed.