Opinion ID: 2590797
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Joey Silva

Text: ¶ 85 The final individual Pinder identifies as a newly discovered witness is a jailhouse informant named Joey Silva. Silva was being held at Duschesne County Jail while Ruiz was an inmate there. According to Silva, Ruiz stated that he and this white guy, the one that went to the police, killed this female and this other guy. Silva also testified that Ruiz stated that Pinder was not present when the murders occurred. ¶ 86 At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that it is difficult to conceive of a less trustworthy witness than Silva. The trial court's credibility assessment is amply supported by the record. Silva has been convicted of multiple felonies, including a communications fraud conviction stemming from an incident in which Silva attempted to trick a man into posting bail for Silva while under the impression that he was providing bail for his own elderly brother. [15] The State also put forward an impressive amount of evidence undercutting Silva's credibility, including numerous witnesses who cast serious doubt on Silva's veracity. For example, Silva's parole officer testified that Silva was very deceitful and one of the most manipulative individuals [he had] ever known. Another officer who was acquainted with Silva testified that [a]nything [Silva] says would be very self-serving. ¶ 87 Silva was initially reticent when approached to participate in this case and stated that he would not feel comfortable testifying unless he received a transfer or was paroled. In subsequent interviews with State investigators, Silva refused to have the conversations recorded and stated that if he were called as a witness he would lie. Citing perjury concerns, Silva also refused to sign any statements. ¶ 88 Although the trial court found that Silva was deemed capable of providing accurate information to law enforcement officials at one point in time, that time has since passed. Silva has been terminated as a confidential informant with the recommendation that he never be used again. In fact, testimony given at the evidentiary hearing reveals that even when officers did work with Silva, they were distrustful of his information and would use it only if independent verification was possible. ¶ 89 Given the slight weight to which Silva's testimony would be entitled, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the presence of that testimony would not make a different result on retrial probable. ¶ 90 Even when considered cumulatively, the evidence offered by Pinder's newly discovered witnesses is not sufficient to justify a new trial. This case is not purely a credibility contest. At trial, the jury had the benefit of both physical and testimonial evidence that clashes with the evidence now brought forward by the defense. In light of the suspect credibility of the new witnesses, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Pinder's newly discovered evidence does not justify a new trial.