Opinion ID: 160511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: roger moore’s letter

Text: Mr. Nichols relies on Mr. Moore’s post-trial letter to the district court as a basis for a new trial. Mr. Nichols does not claim the letter was withheld in violation of Brady; indeed, the letter was not written until after the trial. Instead, Mr. Nichols presents two - 13 - reasons for the letter’s importance: 1) it provides details that differ from Mr. Moore’s prior testimony, and 2) it suggests interviews the FBI conducted with Mr. Moore, the records of which were not turned over to the defense. For the assertion the letter contains new contradictions with Mr. Moore’s trial testimony; Mr. Nichols has failed to detail them. Further, were such contradictions shown, they do not qualify as newly discovered evidence. To support a new trial motion, Mr. Nichols had to show: 1) the evidence was discovered after trial; 2) the failure to learn of the evidence was not caused by his own lack of diligence; 3) the new evidence was not merely impeaching; 4) the new evidence is material to the principle issues involved; and 5) the new evidence is of such a nature that in a new trial it would probably produce an acquittal. Quintanilla, 193 F.3d at 1147. Mr. Nichols has failed to convince us of the existence of the third and fifth conditions. There is no basis for a new trial here. G. DISCOVERY AGREEMENTS, JENKS ACT, RULES OF DISCOVERY Mr. Nichols also bases his claim for a new trial on the interests of justice because the government’s withholding of the lead sheets violated the federal rules of discovery, the Jenks Act, and the parties’ discovery agreement. These claims, even if not timebarred, are without merit. The parties argue vigorously whether Mr. Nichols’ motion should be considered to be preserved beyond the seven-day bar imposed by Rule 33 on new trial motions. In all, - 14 - while the government seems to have the better of this argument, Mr. Nichols is right to point out he has objected to the failure to hand over the lead sheets at every conceivable time and in every manner. Because of the lack of substance to this matter, however, we need not resolve this thorny procedural issue. The government’s failure to turn over the lead sheets is perfectly in accord with the rules of discovery because the sheets were reports made by government agents investigating the case and thus came under the heading “Information not Subject to Disclosure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(2). The lead sheets were not subject to the Jenks Act because they were not relevant statements made by a testifying witness called by the prosecution. 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (a)(b)(e); Fed R. Crim. P. 26.2(a, f). The defense concedes the lead sheets were not covered by the discovery order (because they did not know about them), and the parties oral agreement did not cover interview notes as opposed to memoranda or other summaries of interviews. Thus, it appears in no way does the government’s withholding the lead sheets violate any obligation it had to Mr. Nichols. H. EVIDENTIARY HEARING As an alternative to his motion for a new trial Mr. Nichols asks this Court to order an evidentiary hearing in the district court on the lead sheets and Mr. Moore’s letter.4 We 4 Specifically, Mr. Nichols requested a hearing to: complete the record with testimony under oath concerning how the lead sheets were generated; where they were kept; how they were redacted; how the government decided which ones to turn over under (continued...) - 15 - review the decision of the trial court on the propriety of the evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1263 (10th Cir. 1999). Because this is a very high standard to meet, we should only set aside the district court’s judgment if it is “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” Coletti v. Cudd Pressure Control, 165 F.3d 767, 777 (10th Cir. 1999). On its face there is nothing manifestly unreasonable about the district court’s decision. The two categories of lead sheets that are not available to Mr. Nichols contained inter-agent communications, and lay opinions on the possible identities of John Doe #1 and #2. Brady does not authorize defense counsel’s own search of the government files to argue relevance. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 35, 59 (1987). While the district court might have exercised its discretion to take testimony on some of these matters, it clearly was not a whimsical decision on its part not to do so. We therefore decline Mr. Nichols’ invitation to mandate an extension of these proceedings. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT (...continued) 4 the court’s order; what records the government kept of its lengthy interrogations of Roger Moore and Karen Anderson; what financial arrangement the government had with Roger Moore and Karen Anderson and what, if any, role the Attorney General and the President had in that arrangement; and how the defense would have used the withheld information if it had been timely and properly provided. - 16 - John C. Porfilio