US v. John Bird, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00015-MR-DLH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999736411].. [14-4711]

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 18

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4711

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN DOUGLAS BIRD, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00015-MR-DLH-1)

Argued:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

January 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Ann Loraine Hester, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Donald
David Gast, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Ross Richardson,
Executive Director, Douglas E. Roberts, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF
WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 18

PER CURIAM:
John Douglas Bird, Jr., an enrolled member of the Eastern
Band

of

Cherokee

Indians,

was

convicted

in

federal

district

court of attempted murder and other charges related to a 2008
shooting that took place on the Cherokee reservation.

See 18

U.S.C. § 1113 (prohibiting attempts to commit murder “within the
special

maritime

and

territorial

jurisdiction

of

the

United

States”); 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (providing that “[a]ny Indian” who
commits certain offenses “within the Indian country, shall be
subject

to

committing

the
any

same
of

law

the

and

penalties

as

above

offenses,

within

jurisdiction of the United States”).

all

other
the

persons

exclusive

Bird thereafter filed a

motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that
someone else committed the shooting.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33.

The district court denied the motion, and Bird appeals.

Finding

no reversible error, we affirm.
I.
A.
The

evidence

following.

presented

at

Bird’s

trial

showed

the

On Christmas Day, 2008, the victim, Merony George

“Garce” Shell, was walking in the woods at the end of Bunches
Creek

Road,

a

mountainous

Cherokee reservation.

area

within

the

boundaries

of

the

He heard someone behind him, turned and

saw Bird, a former co-worker of Shell’s, standing near a gray
2

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 3 of 18

truck and holding a rifle at his side.

Shell responded by

cursing Bird and saying, “You might as well kill me.
the gun.”

J.A. 156.

You’ve got

Bird shot Shell, hitting him multiple

times in the face and on the arm.
After being shot, the next thing Shell recalled was driving
back down Bunches Creek Road and wiping blood off his face; he
could not recall how he got to his car or how long it had been
since he had been shot. 1

Shell wrecked his car while trying to

pull over alongside the creek and tumbled out of his car, down
the bank and into the icy water.

He managed to crawl back up

the bank to the road where a neighbor, Theresa McCoy, found him
and called the police.

When McCoy asked Shell who had shot him,

he responded, “John Bird.” J.A. 158.

McCoy testified that she

had earlier observed Shell’s car going up the road toward the
woods at approximately 11:15 a.m., and that the wreck happened
around 12:15 p.m.
Shell was taken to the hospital, where he was interviewed
by FBI Special Agent Craig Sidwell.

Although Shell’s injuries

prevented Sidwell from conducting a full interview, Shell again
identified Bird as the man who shot him.

1

Agent Sidwell passed

It is unclear whether the gaps in Shell’s memory were
attributable to his injuries or the excessive amount of alcohol
he had consumed before the shooting.

3

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 4 of 18

that information on to Detective Gene Owl of the Cherokee Indian
Police Department.
Detective Owl learned through his investigation that Shell
had

visited

Chuck

Taylor

on

Christmas

Eve,

and

Owl

went

Taylor’s house at approximately 7:45 p.m. on Christmas Day.

to
As

Owl walked onto Taylor’s porch, he saw Bird standing in the
living room.

Owl and Bird made eye contact, and Bird ran out

the back door and escaped into the woods.

Bird was arrested on

January 8, 2009, after police found him hiding in the closet of
his father’s home.
Detective Owl interviewed Bird the next day.

Before Owl

told Bird any details, Bird volunteered that he had heard that
Shell had a wreck on Bunches Creek.

Bird nonetheless denied any

knowledge of the shooting, and he gave Owl an account of his
whereabouts on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

In an interview

the next day with the State Bureau of Investigation (“SBI”),
however, Bird eventually confessed to shooting Shell. 2

The SBI

agent then turned Bird back over to Detective Owl for a followup interview.
In
shooting

the

follow-up

Shell.

interview,

Although

Bird

2

Bird
claimed

again
that

confessed
he

could

to
not

Before confessing to the SBI agent, Bird took a polygraph
examination and was told that he failed.
The jury was not
informed about the polygraph.

4

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

remember

the

Filed: 01/15/2016

entire

event,

Pg: 5 of 18

he

provided

some

incident that he would not have otherwise known.

details

of

the

Bird indicated

that the shooting occurred “somewhere in the mountains,” J.A.
234, and he also remembered that Shell cursed at him, saying
something along the lines of, “Shoot me, bitch.”

J.A. 235.

Bird

I

further

stated,

“I

didn’t

mistake. I ain’t no killer.” 3
As

noted,

the

want

to

kill

him.

made

a

J.A. 236.

testimony

of

Theresa

McCoy

placed

the

shooting sometime between 11:00 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. on Christmas
Day.

During Bird’s first interview with Detective Owl, Bird

claimed that he was at Dahne Driver’s house having breakfast
from 8 or 9 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on Christmas Day.

He then

returned to his father’s house until his grandmother, Myrtle
Bird, picked him up and took him to her house to cut wood at
around

12:45

p.m.

Bird

stated

that

he

stayed

at

his

grandmother’s house until he went to Chuck Taylor’s house at
around 7 p.m.
Bird did not testify at trial, nor did he call his father
or

grandmother

as

witnesses.

Instead,

3

Bird

called

Nellie

Bird vomited at the beginning of the interview with Owl on
January 9 and several more times the next day, including twice
on the hour-long drive to the SBI office.
Bird told Owl that
his stomach was “messed up” and that he had to “drink [a] couple
[of] beers every day to make him feel better.” J.A. 220. At no
point on either day did Bird ask for medical assistance or seek
a delay of the interviews.

5

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 6 of 18

Littlejohn, who, at the time of the shooting, was the girlfriend
of

Bird’s

father.

Littlejohn

testified

that

she,

Bird,

and

Bird’s father went to Driver’s house for breakfast but that they
returned home between 11 and 11:30 and that she was with Bird at
his father’s house until Bird’s grandmother picked him up at
about 12:45 p.m.

Littlejohn admitted on cross-examination that

Bird’s father told her that they would have to lie for his son
and say that he was with them when the shooting took place.

She

denied, however, that she was lying on the stand.
The jury rejected Bird’s alibi defense and convicted him of
all charges.

The district court sentenced Bird to a total of

330 months’ imprisonment, and we affirmed his conviction and
sentence on appeal.

See United States v. Bird, 409 F. App’x 681

(4th Cir. Jan. 31, 2011).
B.
On May 29, 2012, Bird filed a motion for a new trial in
which he contended that newly discovered evidence showed that a
man named Justin Denig shot Shell.
briefing
hearing.

on

the

motion

and

held

The district court ordered
an

extensive

evidentiary

As developed through testimony and offers of proof

made by Bird’s attorney, the newly discovered evidence is set
out below.

6

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

1.

Pg: 7 of 18

Deborah Caro

On July 11, 2011 – more than two years after the shooting –
Deborah Caro went to the Cherokee Indian Police Department.

At

that time, Caro spoke to Detective Owl and claimed that her
husband, Justin Denig, was the one who shot Shell in 2008.

The

government disclosed this statement to the defense, and Owl and
the

Federal

investigation

Defender’s
into

office

Caro’s

conducted

claims.

a

follow-up

Counting

her

first

conversation with Detective Owl, Caro ultimately gave a total of
four

statements

investigator.
as

the

to

Owl

and

James

Allard,

the

defense

Caro did not testify at the evidentiary hearing,

district

court

testimonial privilege.

permitted

her

to

assert

the

marital

The court permitted Bird to proffer the

substance of Caro’s statements.
In her first conversation with Detective Owl, Caro told Owl
that Denig was physically abusive and that she had not reported
him previously because she was afraid of him.

She explained,

however, that they had separated “this past Saturday” and that
she had “t[aken] out a protective order on [him].”

J.A. 523.

Caro stated that on Christmas Eve, 2008, she, Denig, and Shell
were drinking together at Caro’s trailer, which was then located
beside Caro’s mother’s home.

Caro passed out at her mother’s

house, but Denig brought her back and put her to bed.
up at around 6 a.m. and found blood in the trailer.
7

She woke
Caro told

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 8 of 18

Owl that she walked outside and saw Shell lying on the ground,
bloody, with a “bullet mark” on his arm.

J.A. 522.

crying and said, “I shot him.”

Caro stated that she

J.A. 522.

Denig was

told Denig that Shell needed to go to the hospital, but Denig
refused and threatened to kill her unless she helped him put
Shell into his car.

Denig and Shell then left in Shell’s car;

Caro did not see Denig again until late in the day when he
called and asked to be picked up at a place near Bunches Creek.
Denig was muddy and wet, and he told Caro that he had gotten
lost hiking and had fallen in the creek.
On

August

5,

2011,

defense

investigator

Allard

briefly

interviewed Caro while she was at work, and she again stated
that Denig shot Shell.

Allard gave Caro a copy of Owl’s notes

about the July 11 conversation, and she generally affirmed the
substance of that statement.

When Allard interviewed Caro again

three days later, however, she recanted much of her previous
statement.

She

denied

ever

saying

that

Denig

admitted

to

shooting Shell, or saying that she saw a bullet mark, and she
said that the blood she saw on Shell could have been from a
bloody nose.

Caro also told Allard that Denig, who had been

arrested for assaulting Caro, had been released from custody and
was again living with her.
On May 30, 2012, Detective Owl interviewed Caro again.

In

this interview, Caro talked about a night in the fall of an
8

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 9 of 18

unspecified year when she, Denig, and Shell were together at her
trailer and were very drunk.

She passed out and saw blood on

the floor when she woke up.

However, contrary to her July 11

account of the incident, Caro told Owl that she saw Shell and
Denig -- each with a bloody nose -- sitting together inside the
trailer, drunk but apparently content and without animus.

She

claimed that she and Denig helped Shell out to his car because
he was drunk, but Caro did not claim to see any bullet wound or
any injury other than the bloody nose.

She said that Denig

later went fishing, which was not unusual, and that he came back
home wet after falling in the creek.

Caro recanted her previous

statement that Denig threatened to kill her if she did not help
to get Shell into the car, and she indicated that her mother
(who did not like Denig) told her to say that.

See J.A. 665.

Caro stated that months after the confrontation with Shell,
Denig told her that he shot Shell.
not

believe

shooting,

him

and

and

she

that

she

described

had

Caro told Owl that she did
not

Denig’s

seen

statements

confrontation as “boasting” and “bragging.”
659.

evidence
about

of

a

the

J.A. 645-46, 651,

Caro told Owl that she asked Denig about the shooting

multiple times when Denig was sober and that Denig told her he
didn’t know what she was talking about.

At the conclusion of

the interview, Caro prepared a hand-written statement in which

9

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 10 of 18

she stated, “I am willing to testify to Justin’s words, that he
said he shot [Shell].”

J.A. 672.
2.

Justin Denig

At the evidentiary hearing, Justin Denig invoked his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination as to most of the
relevant questions.

The district court received as offers of

proof reports of two prior interviews of Denig.
Defense

investigator

Allard

interviewed

Denig

on

October

20, 2011, while Denig was in state custody because of a Florida
probation violation.
was

drinking

with

In that interview, Denig claimed that he

Shell

on

Christmas

Eve.

Denig

said

that

around 1:30 a.m. Christmas morning, he saw Shell with his hand
in his pants standing over the passed-out Caro.
Shell

was

going

to

sexually

assault

Caro

and

Fearing that
might

weapon, Denig hit Shell in the head with a skillet.

have

a

Denig told

Allard that he and Caro dragged Shell outside and that Shell
left in his own car, alone.

Allard asked Denig if he shot

Shell, perhaps in self-defense, and Denig responded that he had
only “busted his head” with the skillet.
asked

Allard,

“If

I

did

shoot

him

in

J.A. 684.

Denig then

self-defense,

can

you

guarantee that I would not go to prison one hundred percent?”
J.A. 684.

Allard stated he could not make that guarantee, and

Denig again denied shooting Shell.

Denig added, “I wouldn’t

shoot him because people would hear the gun go off,” and, “I was
10

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 11 of 18

probably just running my mouth if I told anyone I shot Garce.”
J.A. 684-85.
On

November

16,

2011,

Detective

Owl

interviewed

Denig.

Denig told Owl substantially the same story about hitting Shell
in the head with a skillet.

Denig denied shooting Shell, and he

refused to take a polygraph.
3.
In

light

of

Garce Shell

Caro’s

allegations,

interviewed Shell on August 15, 2011.

Detective

Owl

re-

Shell stated that he was

with two women on Christmas Eve 2008, not Denig and Caro.

Shell

said that he knew Denig and drank with him a couple of times,
but he said that he was not around Denig and did not drink with
him at any time around the shooting.

Shell described the events

of Christmas Day as he previously had, and he again identified
Bird as the shooter.

When asked if he knew why Bird would have

been mad enough to shoot him, Shell explained that there was a
rumor

going

prescription

around
drugs

that
in

he

had

exchange

given

for

Bird’s

sex.

then-girlfriend

Shell

insisted

the

rumor was untrue, but he indicated that Bird was mad about it.
4.

Other Evidence

Bird presented evidence that Denig made statements about
shooting someone to Caro’s nephew and to a woman who bought
Caro’s trailer, neither of whom believed Denig’s story.

11

Bird

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 12 of 18

also presented evidence that there were bullet holes in the door
of the trailer and a large, dark stain on the carpet. 4
Denig’s

state

probation

officer

testified

that,

shortly

after Allard’s interview with Denig, she overheard Denig say on
the telephone, “it happened the way we said it did, right?” J.A.
900.

The probation officer also testified that Denig became

very

nervous

evidentiary

when

hearing

he

was

subpoenaed

and

that

he

told

to
her

testify
he

at

thought

the
about

running away.
C.
After considering the testimony and the offers of proof
presented by Bird, the district court denied the motion for a
new

trial.

The

district

court

concluded

that,

given

his

assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege, Justin Denig would
not be permitted to testify at a new trial.

The court also

concluded that Denig’s statements to law enforcement would be
inadmissible at a new trial.

As to Deborah Caro, the district

court held that she was entitled to invoke the marital testimony
privilege

and

that

she

testify at a new trial.

therefore

could

not

be

compelled

to

The court held that Caro’s statements

4

Caro’s nephew testified at the evidentiary hearing
Denig told him he shot someone who was trying to “get at”
and dumped the body in a cave near Bunches Creek.
J.A.
When explaining the bullet holes in the trailer door, Denig
the buyer that “he had shot someone.” J.A. 878.

12

that
Caro
794.
told

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 13 of 18

to Owl and Allard were inadmissible hearsay, concluding that
Caro’s statements – which she twice recanted – “simply are not
sufficiently credible to warrant admission under the applicable
rules.”

J.A. 1170.

The district court also concluded that even

if all of the newly discovered evidence were admissible, the
motion should still be denied because a new trial would not
likely result in an acquittal.
II.
The

Federal

Rules

of

Criminal

Procedure

authorize

a

district court to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if
the interest of justice so requires.”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).

We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 33 motion for
abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d

941, 948 (4th Cir. 2010).
As we explained in Robinson, for newly discovered evidence
to warrant a new trial,
(a) the evidence must be, in fact, newly discovered,
i.e., discovered since the trial; (b) facts must be
alleged from which the court may infer diligence on
the part of the movant; (c) the evidence relied on
must not be merely cumulative or impeaching; (d) it
must be material to the issues involved; and (e) it
must be such, and of such nature, as that, on a new
trial, the newly discovered evidence would probably
produce an acquittal.
Id. (quoting United States v. Custis, 988 F.2d 1355, 1359 (4th
Cir. 1993).

In addition, “[t]o obtain a new trial on the basis

of after discovered evidence, that evidence must be admissible
13

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

in a new trial.”

Pg: 14 of 18

United States v. MacDonald, 779 F.2d 962, 964

(4th Cir. 1985); accord United States v. Hill, 737 F.3d 683, 687
(10th

Cir.

2013)

(“Implicit

in

a

claim

of

newly

discovered

evidence is that there is new evidence — that is, material that
is admissible at trial.”).
On appeal, Bird contends that the district court erred by
denying his Rule 33 motion.

Bird argues that because Justin

Denig was not a party to these proceedings, the district court
erred

by

permitting

Caro

to

assert

the

marital

testimony

privilege.

Bird also argues that the district court erred in

concluding

that

Denig’s

out-of-court

inadmissible in a new trial.
would

“probably

result

in

statements

would

be

Bird contends that this evidence

acquittal

at

a

new

trial,”

United

States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989), and that
the district court thus abused its discretion by denying his
Rule 33 motion.

The government in response argues that the

district court properly resolved the privilege and admissibility
issues.

The government also argues that even if all of the

evidence

were

considered,

result in acquittal.”

the

evidence

would

not

“probably

Id.

We need not consider whether the district court properly
applied the marital testimony privilege to Caro, nor do we need
to consider whether the court properly found Denig’s statements

14

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

to be inadmissible. 5

Pg: 15 of 18

As we will explain, we agree with the

government that even if we consider the statements of Caro and
Denig, the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the probabilityof-acquittal

requirement.

See

Robinson,

627

F.3d

at

948;

Chavis, 880 F.2d at 793.
When

considering

Bird’s

motion

to

dismiss,

the

district

court, as it was required to do, evaluated the credibility of
the newly discovered evidence.

See United States v. Wilson, 624

F.3d 640, 663 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court is required
to make a credibility determination as part of its probabilityof-acquittal
omitted));
(10th

Cir.

gatekeeper

determination.”

United
2006)
to

a

States
(“[T]he
new

v.

(internal
McCullough,

district

trial,

court

deciding

in

quotation
457
is
the

F.3d
to

marks

1150,
serve

first

1167
as

a

instance

whether the defendant’s proffered ‘new evidence’ is credible.”).
As we have explained, “if the district court does not find a
witness credible, it follows that the district court would not
5

We reject Bird’s argument that Denig’s invocations of his
Fifth Amendment rights would have been admissible at a new
trial. See United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 342 (4th Cir.
2008) (“[P]lacing Johnson on the stand solely to invoke his
Fifth Amendment privilege would lead to unfair prejudice in the
form of both unwarranted speculation by the jury and the
government’s inability to cross-examine Johnson.
And any
inferences that the jury might have drawn from Johnson’s
privilege assertion would have been only minimally probative —
and likely improper — in any event.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).

15

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 16 of 18

find the witness sufficiently persuasive to enable the district
court to conclude that witness testimony would probably produce
an acquittal at a new trial.”

Wilson, 624 F.3d at 663.

As to Deborah Caro, the district court explicitly found her
statements to be “patent[ly] unreliab[le].”

J.A. 1170; see also

id. (“Caro’s statements simply are not sufficiently credible to
warrant admission under the applicable rules.”); id. (“Caro has
implicated Denig on numerous occasions only to recant her story
later.

As such, her actions render her statements to be far

from trustworthy.”).

The record fully supports the district

court’s view in this regard:

Caro first alleged that Denig had

shot Shell at a time when she was separated from Denig and had
obtained a protective order against him; there are significant
differences
between

in

Shell

important

of

witnesses

told

[Caro]

says,”

Caro’s
and
her

various

Denig;

Caro

accusations

Detective
J.A.

Owl

871,

descriptions
recanted

against
that

“you

and

Caro

of

the

some

Denig;
can’t

of
one

incident
the
of

believe

herself

most
Bird’s

a

word

effectively

acknowledged her willingness to lie to police in order to make
Denig look bad, see J.A. 665.

In light of these facts, there is

no basis for us to conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in finding Caro’s statements lacking in credibility.
While the district court did not make express findings about the
credibility of Denig’s statements to third parties, the court
16

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/15/2016

Pg: 17 of 18

did recognize the relative weakness of that evidence, describing
it as consisting only of “vague” statements that “do[] not even
specifically identify Shell as the victim of any shooting Denig
may have committed.”

J.A. 1171.

Weighed against this vague and less-than-credible evidence
of Denig’s guilt is the trial evidence showing Bird’s guilt:
Shell knew Bird and immediately and consistently identified Bird
as the shooter, and Bird confessed to the crime and recounted
details of the crime that he could not otherwise have known.
Additionally,

Bird

fled

from

the

police

on

the

day

of

the

shooting and was found hiding in a closet in his father’s house
when he was arrested.

Given the strength and importance of the

trial evidence, the district court rejected Bird’s claim that
his vague and unpersuasive new evidence would probably result in
acquittal at a new trial.
we

simply

cannot

say

Under the circumstances of this case,
that

the

district

court

abused

its

discretion in its evaluation of the newly discovered evidence or
its weighing of that evidence against the evidence presented at
trial. 6

6

We reject Bird’s argument that the district court should
have considered the effect of the newly discovered evidence in
light of an improved defense strategy “likely” to be pursued at
a new trial. Brief of Appellant at 27. While the ultimate Rule
33 question is whether the evidence would “probably result in
acquittal at a new trial,” United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d
788, 793 (4th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added), the new trial
(Continued)
17

Appeal: 14-4711

Doc: 34

Accordingly,

Filed: 01/15/2016

because

we

Pg: 18 of 18

find

no

error

in

the

district

court’s determination that Bird’s new evidence would not make an
acquittal probable, we hereby affirm the district court’s denial
of Bird’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
AFFIRMED

contemplated is not a perfect trial with all holes in the
defense shored up, but a new trial that includes the newly
discovered evidence along with the evidence presented at the
original trial. See United States v. Wilson, 624 F.3d 640, 663
(4th Cir. 2010) (“[A] district court should focus on whether a
jury probably would reach a different result upon hearing the
new evidence.” (emphasis added)); id. (“[T]he district court
cannot view the [newly discovered evidence] in a vacuum; it must
weigh the [evidence] against all of the other evidence in the
record, including the evidence already weighed and considered by
the jury in the defendant’s first trial.” (emphasis added)).
When analyzing the probability-of-acquittal factor, the district
court thus properly disregarded counsel’s assertion that an
acquittal was even more likely in a new trial because he would
present scholarly articles and expert testimony about false
confessions and problems with eyewitness identifications -evidence that could have been but was not presented in Bird’s
trial.
We likewise reject Bird’s argument that the district court
applied the wrong standard when denying Bird’s Rule 33 motion.
The district court’s opinion states the correct probability-ofacquittal standard, see J.A. 1147, and it is clear enough from
the court’s overall analysis that it did not require Bird to
prove that a new trial would result in an acquittal.

18