Motions Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
Contents
Motions Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
When new evidence comes to light after a trial has concluded, defendants have the opportunity to file a motion for a new trial based on that newly discovered evidence. These types of motions can be complex, but also provide an important avenue for justice when key facts were previously unknown. This article will examine motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence – from the legal standards to file them, to examples of when they have been granted or denied.
The Legal Standard for New Trial Motions Based on New Evidence
In order to file a successful motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence in federal court, the defendant has to meet a high legal bar. The main legal standard here comes from Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states that “the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.
Courts have interpreted this rule to mean that new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence require meeting the following five criteria[1]:
- The evidence must have been discovered after trial
- The failure to discover the evidence sooner must not be due to a lack of diligence on the defendant’s part
- The evidence must not merely be cumulative or impeaching
- The evidence must be material to the issues involved
- The evidence must be of such a nature that a new trial would probably produce a new result
In addition to meeting these five factors, defendants must file the motion within 3 years of the guilty verdict[1]. The high standard exists to discourage defendants from holding back evidence for future appeals, and because courts want to preserve finality[4]. As one court put it, the law “highly disfavors” these types of motions[5].
Requirements for the New Evidence
Looking closer at the five factors defendants must establish, the key requirements have to do with the nature of the new evidence itself. The evidence must be newly discovered – this generally means that the defendant and defense counsel did not know about it during the original trial[4]. And courts have ruled that newly available evidence, like a witness who previously refused to testify but has now agreed, can also support a new trial motion[4].
In addition to being newly discovered or newly available, the evidence itself must be compelling and material to the case. The defendant has to show that the evidence is not just cumulative or supporting facts that were already presented. Rather, the new evidence must be relevant to a key issue in the trial and strong enough that it could change the verdict[3]. Because of this materiality requirement, new evidence that simply impeaches a witness’s credibility is generally not enough for a new trial. The evidence must go directly to the elements and question of guilt or innocence[2].
Meeting the Legal Burden in Practice
Because of the high legal standard, motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are rarely granted. Some examples of situations where the standard has been met include[2]:
- A new witness coming forward who provides an alibi for the defendant
- Discovery of an alternate suspect whose existence was not previously known
- Newly revealed police misconduct in the case, like concealing exculpatory evidence
In all these situations, the evidence directly supports the defendant’s innocence in a material way. On the other hand, courts have denied new trial motions in situations like[3]:
- A witness recanting their testimony from trial
- Minor inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence
- Impeachment evidence against a prosecution witness
While these types of evidence may help the defense, they generally are not enough to meet the burden of being material evidence that would probably change the trial result. The key in any motion based on newly discovered evidence is for the defendant to show that this evidence is not just helpful, but that it essentially undermines the original guilty verdict.
Timing Requirements
In addition to the stringent requirements around the nature of the evidence itself, new trial motions based on newly discovered evidence also must meet strict timing requirements. As mentioned above, under the Federal Rules defendants have 3 years after a guilty verdict to file the motion[1]. The clock here runs from the verdict itself, not the final judgment by the appeals court[1].
This time limit is strict, and courts will reject motions filed even a day late. However, defendants can request an extension within the 3 year window if they discover evidence late in that timeframe[6]. Courts still caution that these extensions should only be granted in the interests of justice, not just because more time would help the defense[6].
The time limit here essentially forces defendants to raise any known issues within 3 years through appeals or post-conviction motions. New evidence discovered beyond that point generally cannot be raised, unless it shows actual innocence in a habeas corpus petition[2]. Given the high bar to get a new trial motion granted, most defendants will raise newly discovered evidence issues on direct appeal if possible, rather than waiting years until after appeals conclude[2].
Procedural Requirements
In addition to the strict time limits, defendants must follow other procedural rules when filing for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The motion must first be filed with the trial court, even if a direct appeal is already pending[2]. The trial judge who heard the original case will decide the motion, not the appeals court.
The motion also must lay out the evidence and how it meets the legal standard for a new trial based on it being newly discovered, material, and likely to change the verdict. Affidavits from witnesses or documentation of the new evidence must be attached[3]. Procedurally, the defendant must establish they could not have uncovered the evidence earlier with due diligence[2].
If the trial court denies the motion, defendants can then raise the issue on appeal to argue the judge abused their discretion in rejecting it[2]. Procedurally, going through the trial court first is required, even if an appeal is already pending.
Examples from Case Law
Looking at how courts have ruled in specific cases helps illustrate when the legal burden for a new trial motion based on newly discovered evidence has been met, versus when defendants have fallen short.
Cases Where New Trial Motions Were Granted
In United States v. Banks, the defendant filed a new trial motion after new witnesses came forward who saw the shooting in question and identified another man as the shooter[2]. The court found this new first-hand eyewitness testimony provided material evidence directly related to guilt or innocence. Since the original conviction relied heavily on eyewitness evidence, the new testimony undermined the guilty verdict and met the standard for a new trial[2].
Another case where the standard was met was United States v. Hernandez. Here, the original conviction relied on evidence from a police informant. After trial, it was revealed that the informant had lied in over 20 other cases[2]. The court ruled this new impeachment evidence was material because it directly undermined the informant’s credibility, which had been key to the original guilty verdict[2].
Cases Where New Trial Motions Were Denied
In contrast, courts have denied new trial motions in cases like United States v. Provost, where the “new” evidence was minor contradictions in witness descriptions[3]. Since the key eyewitness testimony still directly implicated the defendant, this minor impeachment evidence did not undermine the conviction and meet the materiality requirement[3].
Courts have also rejected new trial motions where a prosecution witness recants their testimony after trial. For example, in United States v. DiPaolo the court found that recantations are inherently unreliable, and granted a new trial only when there is clear evidence the original testimony was false[3]. The mere fact of recanting is not enough, unless it completely undermines the conviction in the case.
Conclusion
Motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence serve an important role in the justice system. However, the legal standard is intentionally set very high. Defendants face an uphill battle to convince the court that the new evidence is material and likely to change the verdict. Still, in exceptional cases where key facts were hidden and later come to light, these motions provide a valuable safeguard.