United States v. Batton
687 F. App'x 680
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- William Batton was convicted in 2009 of transporting a minor across state lines for unlawful sexual activity (18 U.S.C. § 2423).
- About 5½ years after conviction, Batton moved for a new trial based on newly obtained therapist handwritten notes about the victim, asserting a Brady violation (suppressed exculpatory evidence).
- Rule 33(b)(1) requires motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence within three years of verdict; Batton’s motion was untimely unless excusable neglect justified an extension under Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b)(1)(B).
- The district court denied the new-trial motion as untimely and later denied reconsideration; the court found Batton at fault for the delay and that the 5½-year delay prejudiced the government (witness availability, faded memories).
- Batton argued he sought the notes promptly after obtaining them via subpoena in a civil suit and that their prior availability doesn’t negate a Brady claim; the district court and the Tenth Circuit focused on excusable neglect rather than the merits of Brady.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Batton’s delay was his fault and prejudicial to the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of new-trial motion under Rule 33 | Batton: motion filed promptly after obtaining therapist notes; excusable neglect justifies tolling three-year deadline | Government: motion untimely under Rule 33; no excuse for >3-year delay | Court: Denied — Batton failed to show excusable neglect; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Availability of evidence and Brady claim | Batton: withheld notes constituted Brady material despite prior availability through subpoena in civil case | Government/District Ct: notes were obtainable earlier; defense could have and should have sought them pretrial | Court: Did not decide Brady merits; focused on timing and fault for delay, finding Batton at fault |
| Prejudice from delay | Batton: civil suit in interim may mitigate prejudice | Government: 5½-year delay prejudicial (faded memories, unavailable witnesses, judicial efficiency) | Court: Agreed the delay was prejudicial; supports denial for untimeliness |
| Standard of review for excusable neglect | Batton: district court should have extended time for excusable neglect | Government: district court acted within discretion applying excusable neglect factors | Court: Applied abuse-of-discretion review and affirmed district court’s factual and discretionary conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Livsey v. Salt Lake County, 275 F.3d 952 (10th Cir.) (courts may credit district court’s statement that it reviewed filings)
- United States v. Cates, 716 F.3d 445 (7th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for excusable-neglect rulings)
- United States v. Munoz, 605 F.3d 359 (6th Cir.) (same standard for review)
- United States v. Vogl, 474 F.3d 976 (10th Cir.) (four-factor test for excusable neglect: prejudice, delay length, reasons, good faith)
- United States v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir.) (fault for delay is a critical factor; denial where movant’s fault caused delay)
- Banks v. Reynolds, 54 F.3d 1508 (10th Cir.) (prosecution’s disclosure obligations unaffected by defense knowledge)