United States v. Ricky Walter Denton
697 F. App'x 963
11th Cir.2017Background
- Ricky Denton was convicted at jury trial of armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm and sentenced to 244 months; he represented himself at trial.
- Before trial Denton wrote letters to his son Jonathon urging false testimony and threatened his daughter‑in‑law Hollie; both then avoided contact with Denton and testified for the government.
- After conviction Denton filed a timely Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on “newly discovered evidence”: post‑trial affidavits from Jonathon and Hollie alleging law‑enforcement interference and promises to induce testimony.
- The district court denied the Rule 33 motion on the merits and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, finding the affidavits not credible in light of trial testimony and courtroom observations.
- Denton appealed the denial (and unsuccessfully pursued reconsideration motions); the Eleventh Circuit reviews denial of a new‑trial motion and denial of an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Denton) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government interference with defense witnesses | Law enforcement instructed Jonathon and Hollie not to contact Denton, impeding his ability to present a defense | Trial record shows both chose not to speak to Denton because of his threatening letters and conduct; alleged interference is not newly discovered or credible | Denied — affidavits not credible; no interference shown |
| Newly discovered evidence standard | Affidavits from Jonathon/Hollie are newly discovered and satisfy factors for a new trial | Affidavits are not credible, largely impeaching or cumulative, and would not probably produce a different result | Denied — factors for Rule 33 not met |
| Giglio/Brady claims (Jonathon & Hollie) | Jonathon was promised no charges if he testified; Hollie was coerced into cooperating/consenting — prosecution suppressed/exploited this | Court found Jonathon’s trial testimony consistent with observations; Hollie’s affidavit does not address the apartment search or show suppression; no proof of knowing use of perjury or suppressed favorable evidence | Denied — no credible Giglio or Brady violation shown |
| Evidentiary hearing | Affidavits raised factual disputes warranting an evidentiary hearing | Trial judge’s firsthand observations and the record allowed credibility resolution without a hearing | Denied — no abuse of discretion in declining a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (elements for newly discovered evidence under Rule 33)
- United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (11th Cir. 1997) (government interference with defense witnesses can violate due process; trial judge may assess affidavits’ credibility)
- United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2006) (new evidence need not relate directly to guilt but may bear on other legal issues)
- United States v. Sweat, 555 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for new‑trial motion and evidentiary hearing denials)
- United States v. Reed, 887 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1989) (trial court may resolve credibility of affidavit evidence without a hearing)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor’s knowing use of perjured testimony or failure to correct it can require relief)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)