Opinion ID: 6218071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cordova’s Second Motion for New Trial

Text: Before Cordova’s trial, Garcia declined to cooperate with the government and invoked his Fifth Amendment right to not testify. But after Cordova’s trial, and before his own sentencing, Garcia interviewed with the government in an effort to secure prison placement in a gang-dropout yard. During his first interview, Garcia admitted to having asked Montoya to murder Dix. But he denied ever asking Cordova to murder Dix or even having spoken to him about the Dix murder. But during a second interview three weeks later, Garcia recalled that after Dix’s murder, Cordova would remind him that he “did that thing” for him, leading Garcia to give him free or reduced-priced drugs. R. vol. 2 at 427. Garcia said that he understood “that thing” to be Dix’s murder. He also confirmed that during the recorded conversation between 6 We do not resolve whether Cordova’s silence constitutes an “oral statement” as contemplated by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(A). 7 Appellate Case: 20-2007 Document: 010110643560 Date Filed: 02/10/2022 Page: 8 himself and Montoya, he had told Montoya that Cordova shouldn’t be talking to others about the Dix murder. After the government timely disclosed Garcia’s statements, Cordova filed a second motion for new trial. In the motion, Cordova argued that Garcia’s statements were newly discovered and material evidence that would likely result in an acquittal. He also argued that Garcia could not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights at a new trial given the lack of risk of self-incrimination, and that even if he could, the government could immunize Garcia, and the statements could be admitted under the statement-against-interest hearsay exception. And Cordova asserted that after granting a new trial, the district court should enter a judgment of acquittal if the government refused to immunize Garcia. To refuse to immunize Garcia, Cordova contended, would violate Cordova’s due process rights. The district court denied Cordova’s motion, concluding that the statements would be “merely impeaching” of Montoya, immaterial, and unlikely to produce an acquittal. It also concluded that the statements would be inadmissible hearsay, that Garcia could likely invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, and that the government wouldn’t violate Cordova’s due process rights by refusing to immunize Garcia.