Perez-Carrera v. United States

Filing 920060112

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The facts underlying Mojica\'s conviction are not necessary to\
our disposition of this case. We therefore do not recount them\
here.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'Due to various delays resulting from motions filed by Mojica and\
his co-defendants, including the requests for new counsel, Mojica\
had not yet been sentenced at the time he filed his pro se motion\
for a new trial.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'The docket report indicates that Mojica\'s supplement was not\
entered until the day after the district court\'s decision denying\
the motion.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'Mojica has not made any argument to us based on his alleged lack\
of representation.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'Even if we were to find that the district court erred in\
applying the amended version of Rule 33, we would still affirm its\
decision because the district court correctly determined that\
Mojica had "failed to show that [the] newly discovered evidence\
warrants a new trial." The only new evidence that Mojica offered\
was Nevárez\'s alleged false testimony in unrelated cases subsequent\
to Mojica\'s trial and conviction. The government correctly notes\
that this is "impeachment evidence cumulative on the issue of the\
cooperating witnesses\' credibility." Brief of Appellee at 32; see\
Colón-Muñoz, 318 F.3d at 358 (stating that new evidence must, inter\
alia, be "not merely cumulative or impeaching") (quoting United\
States v. Wright, 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir. 1980)). Further,\
after reviewing the record, we have no doubt that the government\'s\
case against Mojica was so strong that even if the jury discredited\
Nevárez\'s testimony, it still would have convicted Mojica. The\
district court thus correctly found that the new evidence would not\
warrant a new trial.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "