Opinion ID: 1890124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The newly discovered evidence is credible

Text: The State's arguments at the motion hearing challenged the admissibility of the new evidence, arguing that it was inadmissible hearsay. In assessing the availability of a new trial, however, the court's task is to assess the credibility of the newly discovered evidence, not to conjecture as to its future admissibility. See id. After all, the evidence may be offered differently at a new trial. Courts have noted that self-incriminatory statements that are made to close family members shortly after an alleged crime, that also are corroborated by confirmed DNA evidence, carry substantial indicia of reliability that lends to their trustworthiness. See, e.g., Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 300-01, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (noting in a discussion about exceptions to the inadmissibility of hearsay that a substantial indicia of reliability was established where the statements at issue were made spontaneously to a close acquaintance shortly after the murder, were corroborated by some other evidence in the case, and were self-incriminatory and unquestionably against interest). The circumstances under which Tim's alleged statements were made lend credence to their credibility: Tim's purported statements to his nephew about his presence at the crime scene were made the day after Victim's murder and were corroborated by Tim's DNA being found on the bloody hat at the crime scene; [12] Tim's purported statements to his brother were uttered shortly after Victim's murder and were made spontaneously in the context of the brothers' conversation about family issues. [13] The credibility of Tim's alleged statements is additionally enhanced by the fact that the evidence was generated by his family memberspresumably Tim's brother and nephew would be more likely to lie to protect Tim, not to vilify him in an effort to protect Zackary. Cf. State v. Rogers, 758 S.W.2d 199, 200-01 (Mo.App. 1988) (noting the untrustworthiness of statements offered in support of a defendant by his own friends and relatives; suggesting that trustworthiness requires a neutral interest toward the defendant). Zackary persuasively argues that the newly discovered evidence of Tim's alleged statements is credible for purposes of granting a new trial.