Opinion ID: 625309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Denial of Stroud's Motion for a New Trial

Text: Lastly, Stroud argues that his conviction should be vacated and that he should be given a new trial on the basis of the joint memorandum that was produced in discovery in his civil action. We review the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence for a clear abuse of discretion, a rigorous standard. United States v. Rubashkin, 655 F.3d 849, 857 (8th Cir.2011) (citing United States v. Baker, 479 F.3d 574, 577 (8th Cir.2007)). In order to merit a new trial, (1) the newly discovered evidence must have been unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) the defendant must have been duly diligent in attempting to uncover it; (3) the newly discovered evidence must be material; and (4) the newly discovered evidence probably will result in an acquittal upon retrial. Id. The district court correctly determined that the newly discovered joint memorandum does not warrant a new trial. The joint memorandum was prepared by Earley and Scego after arresting Stroud and was later used to draft the official police report of the incident, written by Detective Ralph Campbell. Stroud contends that the joint memorandum was withheld during his trial and that its absence compromised his ability to cross-examine Earley, Scego, and Campbell. Stroud focuses on facts missing from the official police report, specifically, that Earley struck Stroud with his pistol and that Stroud hit his head on the foundation. But, as the district court pointed out, Earley and Scego testified that Earley struck Stroud with his pistol and that Stroud fell against a limestone foundation while they were trying to arrest him. D. Ct. Order of May 12, 2011, at 4. Stroud was able to cross-examine the witnesses on these points and use these facts in his defense. The joint memorandum did not contain any new material information. Its availability would not have significantly enhanced Stroud's ability to cross-examine the officers, and thus it would not probably result in acquittal on retrial. Stroud further argues that the denial of his motion for a new trial violates his rights under the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the Jencks Act. The Jencks Act requires that the prosecutor disclose any statement of a witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject testified to by the witness on direct examination. United States v. Douglas, 964 F.2d 738, 741 (8th Cir.1992); 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). But [w]e will not overturn a conviction for noncompliance with the Jencks Act where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the government, nor an indication of prejudice to the defendant. Id. (citing United States v. Roberts, 848 F.2d 906, 908 (8th Cir.1988)). Stroud has not shown any indication of bad faith on the part of the government or prejudice to his defense. The testimony at the time of trial was that the memorandum did not exist because such documents were routinely destroyed once a final report had been prepared. This joint memorandum was obviously not destroyed, but there is nothing to suggest that the failure to produce it was anything beyond a bureaucratic mistake. The police testified regarding the facts set forth in the joint memorandum, including the injuries to Stroud during the course of his arrest. Stroud had the opportunity to cross-examine the officers on these facts and to use them in his defense. Because Stroud was not denied a fair trial and had the ability to confront the officers who testified against him, his arguments under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments also fail. [U]nless a defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute denial of due process of law. United States v. Scoggins, 992 F.2d 164, 167 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988)). Stroud has not demonstrated bad faith, and the record reveals that the facts contained in the joint memorandum were known to both sides and aired at trial.