Opinion ID: 2803536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Post-Judgment Motion for a New Trial

Text: We review the District Court’s decision on a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Owen, 500 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2007). Such motions are “granted only with great caution and in the most extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 102 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). To put forward a successful Rule 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence of perjury, the defendant must, among other things, satisfy two threshold requirements—he must present newly discovered evidence and must prove that “the witness in fact committed perjury.” United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 297 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Seabrook filed a post-judgment motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the basis of “newly discovered evidence” of perjury by two government witnesses. J.A. 367. The District Court, in a thoughtful 20-page decision, denied this motion, reasoning that Seabrook made no showing of perjury and that even if perjury had occurred, there were insufficient grounds in the present case to grant Seabrook’s motion. For substantially the reasons outlined by the District Court, we affirm the denial of Seabrook’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial. 5