United States v. Mario Ponce Rodriguez
703 F. App'x 784
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ponce was convicted at trial; after conviction he moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- New evidence: a defense-impeached witness (Stirling) in Ponce’s case had been granted a new trial in a separate case due to government misconduct; Ponce argued this undermined Stirling’s credibility and showed false testimony.
- Additional new evidence: an affidavit from Ponce’s trial counsel claiming identified witnesses would testify that government witnesses colluded to lie against Ponce.
- District court denied the motion and refused an evidentiary hearing, finding the new evidence unlikely to produce a different result and largely cumulative/impeaching.
- Ponce appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by holding the new evidence immaterial and by denying a hearing.
- Eleventh Circuit reviewed denial of a new-trial motion and denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new evidence about Stirling warrants a new trial | Stirling’s grant of a new trial shows his trial testimony was unreliable and could have changed the verdict | Government: Stirling’s separate relief doesn’t prove his testimony here was false or would be different; district court found him already incredible | Denied — court held the Stirling evidence would not probably produce a different result; district judge’s assessment of credibility controlling |
| Whether counsel’s affidavit alleging witness collusion requires a new trial | Ponce: counsel’s affidavit identifies witnesses who would testify to government witness collusion, undermining prosecution case | Government: investigation found collusion claims implausible; proposed evidence is cumulative impeachment only | Denied — affidavit was cumulative/impeaching and insufficiently substantiated to warrant a new trial |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required | Ponce: hearing needed to probe collusion and Stirling’s credibility impact | Government: no hearing necessary because evidence was insubstantial and district judge familiar with trial record | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion in declining a hearing given its familiarity and the nature of the evidence |
| Whether newly discovered evidence met the five-part test for a new trial | Ponce: asserted evidence discovered after trial, material, and likely to change outcome | Government: evidence fails materiality and likelihood prongs; is cumulative/impeaching | Denied — evidence failed the materiality/probability-of-different-result prong; motion properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 779 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for denial of a new-trial motion)
- United States v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for denial of evidentiary hearing)
- United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2006) (new-trial motions based on newly discovered evidence are disfavored and may address fairness issues)
- United States v. Lee, 68 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 1995) (five-part test for newly discovered evidence and deference to district court’s credibility findings)
- Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473 (1972) (use of an invalid conviction to impeach violates due process)
- Harrison v. Jones, 880 F.2d 1279 (11th Cir. 1989) (effect of erroneous prior-conviction impeachment when multiple convictions used)
- United States v. Alzate, 47 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 1995) (materiality standard when prosecutor allows false testimony to go uncorrected)
- United States v. Garcia, 854 F.2d 1280 (11th Cir. 1988) (additional impeachment that merely duplicates earlier attacks is cumulative)
- United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997) (self-serving, unsubstantiated affidavits do not warrant a new trial)
- United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 1997) (trial judge’s familiarity can justify ruling on affidavits without a hearing)
- United States v. Hamilton, 559 F.2d 1370 (5th Cir. 1977) (evidentiary hearings on new-trial motions are rare except in unique circumstances such as jury tampering or prosecutorial misconduct)