Opinion ID: 28413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the State of Texas during the trial. Marshall

Text: The Reedys aver that they should receive a testified about his background and new trial for two reasons: (1) They have employment as a police officer for the City of uncovered evidence that impeaches a Fort Worth in the early 1980’s. He also prosecution witness. (2) The cumulative testified that he suggested that Nelson use the errors in the indictment and trial require a new software program called Web Buddy to record adjudication of guilt. We review for abuse of the child pornography websites. In addition, discretion the denial of a new t rial based on Marshall testified that he suggested, installed, newly discovered evidence. United States v. and helped configure the software program Metz, 652 F.2d 478, 479 (5th Cir. Unit A Aug. called VisualRout e and the device used to 1981).17 videotape the child pornography images from the Internet.
After trial and before sentencing, the Marshall explained how VisualRoute government discovered that Marshall, its worked and how the origination points for the expert, had failed to disclose that he had been websites demonstrated an impact on interstate asked to resign from the Fort Worth Police and foreign commerce. Thus, most of Department because of misconduct, and Marshall’s testimony centered on explaining Thomas Reedy’s trial counsel had represented the Internet. On cross-examination, Thomas him in an unrelated proceeding years before Reedy’s defense counsel stated to Marshall: the instant offense. The government notified “[A]pparently we ran into one another when I trial counsel, who claimed no recollection of was a prosecutor or something, because you having represented Marshall. The Reedys’ recall me.” Marshall’s response was “Yes, sir, counsel then filed a Motion To File Motion to I do.” Marshall’s direct and redirect testimony Withdraw Under Seal and Counsel’s Motion covered approximately 13.5 pages of the recTo Withdraw and Request To Present ord, and his cross-examination testimony covSupporting Evidence Ex Parte. The court ered almost 35 pages. The Reedys claim that granted the request to withdraw. the evidence on the witness’s relationship with their attorney should have been further The new defense counsel filed motions for developed. new trial on the ground that such newly discovered evidence could have been used to For a new trial on the basis of newly impeach Marshall and demonstrated an discovered evidence, a defendant must irreconcilable conflict of interest between demonstrate that Reedy and his trial counsel. The court denied both motions. (1) the evidence is newly discovered and was unknown to the defendant at the Marshall was the Chief Investigator for the time of trial; (2) failure to detect the evInternet Bureau of the Attorney General for idence was not due to a lack of diligence by the defendant; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) 17 Refusal of a hearing on a motion for new trial the evidence is material; and (5) the is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. Metz, 652 evidence introduced at a new trial would F.2d at 481. 13 probably produce an acquittal. United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 551 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The Reedys have not pointed to any evidence that they would be likely to win an acquittal at a new trial. Marshall’s testimony was generic, expert testimony, and the government could always replace him with another expert. He had to testify only about the operation of the Internet, not the age of the girls, because the Reedys conceded, in a police interview, knowledge of illegal child pornography on the websites. The Reedys do not point to portions of Marshall’s testimony that were false, biased, or even material. Nor do they provide any evi- dence that their counsel was biased by his past representation of Marshall. They do not allege that he failed to cross-examine Marshall thoroughly. And because Marshall said little of significance, a stronger cross-examination would not have led to an acquittal.
The Reedys argue that the cumulative er- rors throughout their trial warrant a new trial. We have not found quite as many errors as the Reedys allegedSSin fact, we reverse only on multiplicity grounds. “Although the ‘cumulative effect of several incidents . . . may require reversal, even though no single one . . . co nsidered alone would warrant such a result,’ this situation is a rarity.” United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1327 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal citation omitted). The instant case does not qualify. The judgments of sentence are VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for resentenc- ing. 14