Opinion ID: 659744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Molina's Motion for a New Trial

Text: 31 Defendant Molina contends that because he has newly discovered evidence, the district court erred in denying his Rule 33 Motion for New Trial. 32 A motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence must show due diligence on the part of the movant to discover the evidence. United States v. Lopez, 803 F.2d 969, 977 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Steel, 759 F.2d 706, 713 (9th Cir.1985). In addition, the evidence must be material to the issues involved, not merely cumulative or impeaching, and must indicate that a new trial probably would produce an acquittal. United States v. Lopez, 803 F.2d 969, 977 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Steel, 759 F.2d 706, 713 (9th Cir.1985). 33 We review the district court's denial of a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lopez, 803 F.2d 969, 977 (9th Cir.1986). 34 The district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Molina's motion for a new trial. First, Molina did not make any showing why he could not obtain this evidence before trial. He does not show why he was unable to interview Teran, or any other inspectors at the port of entry on the date of the seizure, before trial. His failure to discover this evidence appears to have been due to his own lack of diligence, rather than unavailability or newness of the evidence. Second, Molina has not made any showing that this evidence would probably produce an acquittal, as required by Steel and Lopez. The district court heard Teran's testimony. It weighed his credibility and the relevance of his proposed testimony. Thus, the district court was well within its discretion in denying Molina's motion for new trial. 35