590 F. App'x 324
5th Cir.2014Background
- Jena was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of justice tied to his tax-preparation business.
- The district court entered judgment and denied a Rule 33 motion for a new trial; direct appeal was pending.
- Jena argued newly discovered evidence: a Yahoo! CD allegedly showing Garner did not email back-dated termination letters, which could impeach Garner.
- Jena asserted suppression of evidence that Perez and Munoz worked for Mangoma and used Mangoma’s EFIN numbers, which could impeach their testimony.
- The court applied abuse-of-discretion review to the new-trial motion and de novo review to Brady claims; held the evidence was not material.
- The district court’s denial of the motion for a new trial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial | Jena argues Yahoo! CD impeachment material would have changed outcome | Evidence immaterial or mere impeachment; would not alter result | No abuse of discretion; evidence not material |
| Whether there was a Brady violation by suppressing evidence about Perez and Munoz | Suppression of favorable evidence could yield acquittal | Evidence not material or probative of guilt | No Brady violation |
| Whether Napue false-testimony claims require new trial | Government knew or should have known statements were false and material | No showing of false statements or material impact | No Napue violation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Infante, 404 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)
- United States v. Turner, 674 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2012) (Brady claims evaluated de novo)
- United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2011) (new-trial standard for newly discovered evidence)
- Lawrence v. Lensing, 42 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 1994) (Brady materiality and suppression standards)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (favorable evidence must be disclosed)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1959) (false testimony and materiality require reversal)
- United States v. O’Keefe, 128 F.3d 885 (5th Cir. 1997) (Napue standards for false evidence)
- United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2003) (impeachment evidence and materiality considerations)
- Barraza, 655 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2011) (materiality of new-evidence evidence in context of acquittal likelihood)
- Shugart, 117 F.3d 838 (5th Cir. 1997) (new-trial evidence that corroborates defense is insufficient)
- United States v. MMR Corp., 954 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1992) (evaluation of new-trial evidence standards)
- United States v. Wall, 389 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2004) (Napue materials and likelihood of impact on judgment)