United States v. O'Malley
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15101
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- O’Malley convicted of Clean Air Act violations for improper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing insulation.
- On direct appeal, O’Malley’s convictions were upheld in United States v. O’Malley, 739 F.3d 1003-06 (7th Cir.).
- Two months after, pro se, O’Malley filed a Rule 33(b)(1) motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- District court split the evidence into three groups and dismissed two as §2255-reliant, denying Rule 33 relief.
- Court allowed Rule 33 relief for all claims, noting overlap with §2255 and instructing remand for proceedings consistent with Rule 33.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence with constitutional claims fits Rule 33 | O’Malley argues Rule 33 covers new Brady/Giglio theories. | Court misclassified; Brady/Giglio must proceed under §2255. | Rule 33 may cover constitutional theories arising from new evidence. |
| Whether overlapping Rule 33 and §2255 remedies permit choice | O’Malley could elect Rule 33 regardless of §2255 overlaps. | Remedy should be §2255 when constitutional claims arise. | Defendant allowed to choose Rule 33; district court erred in forcing §2255. |
| Whether recharacterization requirements applied to O’Malley’s motion | No recharacterization necessary; motion remained Rule 33. | Castro-type warnings and potential recharacterization apply. | No improper recharacterization; defendant could proceed under Rule 33. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United States, 424 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2000) (actual innocence not sole path to Rule 33 relief, Rule 33 broader)
- Ruth v. United States, 266 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2001) (addressed interplay of Rule 33 and §2255; Brady claims discussed)
- United States v. Rollins, 607 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional considerations; constitutionally based Rule 33 claims)
- United States v. Westmoreland, 712 F.3d 1066 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rule 33(b)(1) standard for posttrial new evidence)
- United States v. Hagler, 700 F.3d 1091 (7th Cir. 2012) (newly discovered evidence must be material and likely to lead to acquittal)
- United States v. Reyes, 542 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2008) (application of Rule 33 to posttrial discoveries)