United States v. Arnold Maurice Mathis, 688 F. App'x 875

Mathis, pro se, sought a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 alleging post‑trial discovery that the government accessed his cell phone without a warrant.
The alleged warrantless access occurred December 19, 2011; the government had produced a report during the federal case that later was used by Mathis’s state‑court expert to conclude the access was warrantless.
Mathis’s federal trial counsel and expert did not assert illegal access during the federal proceedings despite having the report.
The district court denied Mathis’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial and refused to hold an evidentiary hearing; Mathis appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding Mathis failed multiple prongs of the newly discovered evidence test and that an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary because the record was dispositive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mathis discovered new evidence after trial that warrants a new trial	The state expert’s post‑trial opinion that the phone was accessed without a warrant constitutes newly discovered evidence	The government argued the report was available during trial and no new factual evidence was produced after the verdict	Denied — Mathis failed to show the evidence was actually discovered after trial
Whether Mathis exercised due diligence to discover the evidence	Mathis contended he reasonably uncovered the issue only later	Government pointed out Mathis’s counsel and expert had access to the report but did not raise the claim	Denied — Mathis did not exercise due care
Whether the alleged evidence was material and not merely cumulative or impeaching	Mathis argued the warrantless access tainted inculpatory phone evidence and could change the trial outcome	Government argued the warrant application and evidence did not rely on any material from the alleged illegal access (independent source)	Denied — evidence would not probably produce a different result
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the Rule 33 motion	Mathis asserted the motion warranted a hearing to resolve factual disputes	Government argued the existing record contained the necessary facts for resolution	Denied — district court did not abuse discretion in refusing a hearing

United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 1995) (five‑part test for newly discovered evidence under Rule 33)
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored)
United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997) (new trial cannot be based on evidence known before the verdict)
United States v. Terzado‑Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099 (11th Cir. 1990) (independent source doctrine preserves admissibility of evidence obtained from lawful sources)
United States v. Scrushy, 721 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2013) (denial of evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion)