United States v. Boyd
401 F. App'x 565
2d Cir.2010Background
- Boyd, pro se, was convicted by a jury in SDNY of two counts of bank robbery, twelve counts of armed bank robbery, and escape.
- He moved under Rule 33 seeking a new trial, arguing the Government’s DNA evidence was fabricated and the DNA testing was manipulated.
- The district court denied the Rule 33 motion after considering the DNA challenge and related claims.
- Boyd also argued Confrontation Clause violations regarding forensic evidence, an in-court identification, and requested a jury instruction.
- The district court rejected Boyd’s proposed jury instruction as inaccurate and unsupported by the record.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding no abuse of discretion and that any errors were harmless given the weight of other evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 33 motion should have been granted | Boyd claimed government misconduct in DNA testing | Boyd argued DNA evidence was fabricated or altered | No abuse of discretion; claims unsupported |
| Confrontation Clause applicability to forensic evidence | Boyd asserted a Confrontation Clause violation | Evidence did not violate confrontation or any violation was harmless | Affirmed; any error harmless |
| Admissibility of in-court identification | Identification testimony may have been improperly admitted | Identification admissible | No clear error; if improper, harmless given other strong evidence |
| Propriety of the requested jury instruction | Instruction reflected defense theories | Instruction not an accurate statement of law or supported | Rejected; instruction not accurate or supported |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing Rule 33 motions; manifest injustice standard)
- United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2001) (great caution for granting new trials; extraordinary circumstances)
- United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409 (2d Cir. 1992) (manifest injustice; extremely cautious approach to new trials)
- United States v. Gilbert, 668 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1981) (basis to deny Rule 33 where allegations are speculative)
- United States v. Abelis, 146 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1998) (standard for evaluating jury instruction sufficiency)
- United States v. Dove, 916 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990) (prejudice standards for jury instructions; evidence foundation)
- United States v. Russo, 74 F.3d 1383 (2d Cir. 1996) (defense theories require foundation in the record for instructions)
- United States v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2001) (clear error standard for identification testimony)