Opinion ID: 800766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reopening the VOSR Hearing

Text: Appellant also argues that the district court erred in declining to reopen the VOSR hearing in light of Marquita's October 28, 2010, letter stating that she lied on [sic] Mr. Tyrone Carthen, that appellant never put his hands on [her], and that she just [does not] want Mr. Carthen to have to spend any more time in jail because of [her]. Although we have not explicitly ruled on the proper standard of review of a district court's denial of a motion to reopen a revocation hearing, the standard clearly is one of abuse of discretion. That standard accurately reflects the degree of deference properly accorded a district court's decision[] regarding evidentiary matters and the general conduct of trials. United States v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116, 131 (2d Cir.2000) (applying abuse of discretion to reconsideration of a suppression motion because of new evidence); see also United States v. Gotti, 794 F.2d 773, 780 (2d Cir. 1986) (applying abuse of discretion standard to denial of motion to reopen bail hearing). In the analogous context of motions for a new trial, witness recantations are viewed with the utmost suspicion, Haouari v. United States, 510 F.3d 350, 353 (2d Cir.2007) (quoting Ortega v. Duncan, 333 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir.2003)), particularly in the context of recantations from victims of domestic violence, see O'Laughlin v. O'Brien, 577 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2009) (noting that victims of domestic violence often recant or refuse to cooperate). Factors considered in reviewing a district court's decision to decline an evidentiary hearing involving a recanting witness include: the importance of the witness's testimony in the original proceeding; the existence of evidence corroborating either the conviction or the recantation;... the temporal proximity of the trial testimony and the purported recantation; the consistency of the recantation with the witness's comments and behavior before, during, and after trial; and the existence of evidence of outside influence suggesting either coerced testimony or coerced recantation. United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876, 884 (8th Cir.2008). Where the evidence could have no effect on the ultimate disposition of the matter, a district court may decline to reopen the revocation hearing. United States v. Mitchell, 429 Fed.Appx. 271, 276 (4th Cir. 2011). The district court did not find Marquita's letter sufficiently credible to undermine her earlier corroborated and sworn accounts of the attacks. That finding was not an abuse of discretion. Marquita's effort to minimize appellant's conduct is consistent with the guilt she expressed for reporting the abuse instead of tak[ing] the ass-whipping and not report[ing] what happened. It is also consistent with her expressed desire not to be responsible for appellant returning to prison. Furthermore, the district court was entitled to consider that such a recantation is not unusual in domestic violence cases. Victims of this type of violence often are protective of, and deny allegations against, their abusers. In contrast to the recantation, Marquita's original story was corroborated by the scar on her hand; Zavatsky's interviews with Booker and Nancy; her own sworn and graphically detailed testimony in her March 23, 2010, Family Offense Petition; the NYPD Domestic Incident Report; and the fact that Marquita went to a domestic violence shelter in a self-evident attempt to escape appellant. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying appellant's request to reopen the VOSR hearing.