United States v. Carreto, 4:19-cr-00301

Background

On Sept. 25, 2019, a minor (M.T.) overdosed on heroin; she told police she bought the heroin from Kolton Watson. Plano PD and DEA task-force officers investigated and arranged undercover buys that led to Watson’s arrest.
Watson repeatedly told officers and testified at trial that he bought heroin only from a supplier he called “Kid,” later identified as Jose Antonio Carreto; phone/text records and a search of Carreto’s car (≈12 g heroin) corroborated that Carreto was Watson’s sole supplier.
Carreto was indicted (counts 1 and 3 inter alia) for distribution/conspiracy resulting in serious bodily injury; Watson pleaded guilty to one count and later testified for the Government at Carreto’s trial. A jury convicted Carreto on counts 1, 2, and 3, finding that M.T. suffered serious bodily injury from heroin in Carreto’s distribution chain.
Months after the trial, Watson sent letters to the prosecutor and the Court stating broadly that he had lied in court and had been pressured to cooperate; the letters were unsworn and nonspecific about what testimony was false.
Carreto moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 for a new trial on counts 1 and 3 based on Watson’s letters as newly discovered evidence and requested an evidentiary hearing to examine Watson under oath.

Issues

Issue	Carreto’s Argument	Government’s / Opposing Argument	Held
Do Watson’s post-trial letters qualify as newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial on counts 1 and 3?	Letters show Watson lied at trial; if Watson’s testimony was false, another supplier might exist, creating reasonable doubt about Carreto’s role in the distribution chain.	Letters are unsworn, vague, only impeaching, contradicted by Watson’s prior sworn admissions and corroborating phone/text evidence; therefore not material and unlikely to produce acquittal.	Denied. Court assumed letters were newly discovered but found them merely impeaching and unlikely to produce acquittal.
Are Watson’s letters material (not merely impeachment) under Rule 33?	The alleged falsehoods go to the core of who supplied heroin to Watson and thus are material.	The letters lack specifics and merely attempt to impeach Watson’s credibility; impeachment-only evidence is insufficient for a new trial.	Denied. Court held letters are only impeachment evidence and not material.
Would the letters probably produce an acquittal?	If jury believed Watson recanted, reasonable doubt would exist as to Carreto’s participation in the distribution chain causing serious bodily injury.	Courts view recantations with extreme suspicion; here letters are unsupported, contradicted by records and prior sworn testimony, so they would not likely lead to acquittal.	Denied. Court found letters would not probably produce acquittal.
Is an evidentiary hearing required to examine Watson under oath?	Carreto requested a hearing specifically to question Watson about a possible second supplier.	Hearing is discretionary; judge familiar with trial record may decide Rule 33 motion without hearing absent unusual circumstances (e.g., jury tampering, prosecutorial misconduct).	Denied. Court exercised discretion and refused a hearing.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. McClaren, 13 F.4th 386 (5th Cir. 2021) (newly discovered evidence motions are disfavored; impeachment-only evidence is not material)
United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 1994) (elements required for Rule 33 relief based on newly discovered evidence)
United States v. Wall, 389 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to satisfy any Rule 33 prerequisite requires denial)
Summers v. Dretke, 431 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2005) (courts view recantations with extreme suspicion)
United States v. Eghobor, 812 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. 2015) (newly discovered evidence is not material if its only purpose is to impeach trial testimony)