Opinion ID: 199502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards for Motions for New Trial

Text: Generally under Rule 33, a defendant who seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show that: (1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) failure to learn of the evidence was not due to lack of diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is material, and not merely cumulative -6- or impeaching; and (4) it will probably result in an acquittal upon retrial of the defendant. United States v. Wright, 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir. 1980); see also Alicea, 205 F.3d at 487. A defendant's new trial motion must be denied if he fails to meet any one of these factors. United States v. Falu-Gonzalez, 205 F.3d 436, 442 (1st Cir. 2000). Different standards as to the third and fourth showings govern the consideration of new trial motions depending on the grounds for the motion. As we described in Josleyn, if the basis is that the government has failed to disclose information required by Brady, then the more defendant-friendly Kyles v. Whitley standard applies. See Joselyn, 206 F.3d at 151-52. Under the Kyles standard, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense the result of the proceeding would have been different, and that, in turn, requires an analysis of whether the trial resulted, in the absence of such evidence, in a verdict worthy of confidence. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995). If, however, the motion is a routine Rule 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence that does not involve an alleged Brady violation, then the standard is more onerous for defendants, and defendant must show the new material evidence will probably result in an acquittal. Wright, 625 F.2d at 1019. This means an actual probability that an acquittal would have resulted if the evidence had been available. United States -7- v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1216, 1220 (1st Cir. 1993). A further application of these two basic standards -- the Kyle verdict worthy of confidence standard and the Rule 33 actual probability of acquittal standard -- was addressed in United States v. Huddleston, 194 F.3d 214 (1st Cir. 1999). The question there was what standard to apply to a new trial motion which alleged that the prosecutor had unwittingly used perjured testimony. See 194 F.3d at 221-22. Huddleston rejected earlier cases in this circuit suggesting that in such a situation, it may be appropriate to apply a lower standard, announced in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir. 1928), that a defendant need only show that the newly discovered evidence might produce a different result. See Larrison, 24 F.2d at 87; see also United States v. Natanel, 938 F.2d 302, 313 (1st Cir. 1991). Instead, Huddleston held that when a defendant grounds a motion for a new trial in a criminal case on a claim that he has newly discovered perjury on the part of one or more government witnesses, the conviction nonetheless should stand unless the force of the newly discovered event (i.e., the fact and nature of the perjury) and the content of the corrected testimony are such that an acquittal probably would result upon retrial. 194 F.3d 221 (emphasis added). Huddleston expressly reserved for another day the question of the standard to be used as to claims of knowing or reckless use by the government of perjured testimony. See id. -8- We resolve that question as, we believe, Supreme Court precedent requires us to do. Although González does not categorize knowing use of perjured testimony as a Brady type error, we think it is sufficiently analogous that the Brady error rule should apply to claims of knowing use of perjured testimony. The risk that a conviction was brought about by the government's knowing use of perjury goes to the concerns about fairness of the trial that animated Kyle. Obtaining a conviction by presenting testimony known to be perjured is inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935); accord Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (1972). In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), a pre-Brady case, the Supreme Court said a new trial is required if the false testimony could . . . in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury. 360 U.S. at 271. The Supreme Court has several times referred to the prosecution's knowing use of perjured testimony as a category of Brady error, see, e.g., Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81 (1999); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976), while also repeating the standard that a conviction . . . must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury, id. at 103. In United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the Court noted that this rule had earlier been stated as a branch of the harmless error test, but it may be as -9- easily stated as a materiality standard. See 473 U.S. at 679. And recent decisions about Brady errors which did not involve knowing use of perjured materials continue to recognize that such errors are properly analyzed under Brady, employing the reasonable likelihood of acquittal standard. See Strickler, 527 U.S. at 298-99 (Souter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433 n.7 (citing Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103). In sum, a court's choice among the standards for analyzing new trial motions depends upon the ground for the new trial motion. First, for the non-Brady Rule 33 motion where a defendant seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (other than evidence that an adverse witness testified falsely) the inquiry is whether that evidence (assuming it meets the first three prongs of the Wright test, see supra) in actual probability would result in acquittal if a new trial were granted. That test is also used where a new trial motion is premised upon alleged new evidence that a conviction was obtained by perjured testimony when the government's use of that testimony was unwitting. In that situation, Huddleston requires the defendant to meet the actual probability of acquittal standard. The second category involves the different types of Brady violation cases, where it is alleged that the government withheld exculpatory evidence. There, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that the missing evidence would have changed -10- the result. In contrast, the reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury standard applies where it is alleged that the government knowingly used perjured testimony to obtain a defendant's conviction. Although the Supreme Court has not described whether there is a difference between the reasonable likelihood and reasonable probability standards, we believe they are equivalent. In the end, both standards are concerned with whether defendants received a fair trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence. See Strickler, 527 U.S. at 298 (concurring opinion); see also Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary 1310 (1993) (defining likelihood as probability). As Strickler explains, not every violation by prosecutors of their duty to pursue truth necessarily establishes that the outcome was unjust. 527 U.S. at 281. We turn to the merits of González's new trial motion.