USA v. John Cain

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant John Cameron Cain. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-11347

Date Filed: 05/16/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11347
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20461-KMW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN CAMERON CAIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 16, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11347

Date Filed: 05/16/2017

Page: 2 of 5

John C. Cain appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial
based on new evidence and the denial of an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial, which was
based on two newly discovered police reports that showed he was involuntarily
committed under Florida’s “Baker Act,” Fla. Stat. §§ 394.451; 394.463. He argues
that this new evidence could not have been discovered before trial, because he was
heavily medicated and could not assist his counsel. Cain also argues that the
evidence was material, because it supported his insanity defense and showed that
the government presented evidence it knew to be false. Finally, he argues that the
district court should have at least held an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
Following an incident in which Cain, drunk and high, pointed an Ak-47 at a
mail carrier, Cain was indicted for forcibly assaulting a federal officer using a
deadly weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b), brandishing a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). Cain was sentenced to 300 months’
imprisonment. During his trial, Cain presented an insanity defense, and while
describing Cain’s history of mental illness, Cain’s counsel mentioned that Cain had
been “Baker Acted” for being a danger to himself or others on several occasions.
During the government’s closing argument, the government stated that Cain was
2

Case: 16-11347

Date Filed: 05/16/2017

Page: 3 of 5

not “Baker Acted” at the time of the incident, and there was no record of any
“Baker Acting” or history of psychiatric illness.
A district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 779, 782 (11th Cir. 2007). A
district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion for a new trial is also
reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434, 1438
(11th Cir. 1998).
“Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant
a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Motions
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are “highly disfavored” and
“should be granted only with great caution.” See United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d
1121, 1151 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A new trial is warranted based upon circumstances coming to light after
trial only if the following five part test is satisfied: (1) the evidence was in fact
discovered after trial; (2) the defendant exercised due care to discover the
evidence; (3) the evidence was not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the
evidence was material; and (5) the evidence was of such a nature that a new trial
would probably produce a different result.” United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267,
1273 (11th Cir. 1995). “[F]ailure to satisfy any one of these elements is fatal to a
motion for new trial.” Id. at 1274. “[T]he acumen gained by a trial judge over the
3

Case: 16-11347

Date Filed: 05/16/2017

Page: 4 of 5

course of the proceedings makes [the judge] well qualified to rule on the basis of
affidavits without a hearing. United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944, 994 (11th Cir.
1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cain’s motion for a
new trial, because Cain did not show that he could not have obtained these reports
before trial through the exercise of due diligence. Cain asserts that he obtained the
police reports through FOIA requests, but offers no credible explanation why he or
his attorney could not have submitted these FOIA requests before trial.
Additionally, even though Cain argues that he could not assist counsel because he
was heavily medicated while in pretrial custody, he was able to offer assistance to
his counsel by identifying the hospitals where he claim to be “Baker Acted” before
trial. And even though Cain’s counsel was able to request medical records from
those hospitals, his failure to also request the police records that Cain eventually
obtained through FOIA requests was a failure to exercise due diligence. When the
medical records were unavailable, a reasonable step would have been to seek
documentation of the Baker Act commitments from another source, such as a
police report. Without evidence of due care to uncover relevant evidence, Cain has
not met the criteria for a new trial. See Lee, 68 F.3d at 1273–74.
To the extent that Cain argues that the government’s presentation of false
testimony is a separate ground for a new trial, the district court properly denied his
4

Case: 16-11347

Date Filed: 05/16/2017

Page: 5 of 5

motion on that ground, because it was not filed within 14 days of the verdict as
required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(2).
Finally, because the district court could determine that Cain did not meet the
criteria for a new trial based on the record, it did not abuse its discretion by
denying his request for an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.

5