United States v. Rodney Mitchell, 498 F. App'x 339

Mitchell was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to tamper with a witness, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, and received a 97-month sentence.
During a raid on a Richmond apartment, Dugger—on the lease—had charges dismissed and was released, and Mitchell’s charges were dropped at that time.
Dugger later alleged that Mitchell and Harris threatened him to prevent testifying, prompting investigators to obtain recordings of calls.
Mitchell’s counsel learned of the jail recordings about a month after appointment and requested a continuance three days before trial to review them; the district court denied the motion.
At trial, the jury heard Mitchell’s calls discussing Dugger with his brother and with Harris; Mitchell then moved for a new trial alleging failure to obtain exculpatory evidence, which the district court denied after an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the continuance denial an abuse of discretion?	Mitchell's counsel needed time to review impeaching recordings.	District court exercised broad discretion and denial was warranted.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Was the new-trial denial appropriate based on newly discovered evidence?	Recorded jail calls were exculpatory/new evidence.	Evidence was not newly discovered and was impeachment; would not change outcome.	Affirmed denial of new trial.

Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (broad discretion on continuances; prejudice required)
LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815 (4th Cir. 1990) (continuance rulings prejudice inquiry)
United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances)
United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2006) (Rule 33 new-trial standard and scrutiny)
United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 2001) (newly discovered evidence factors)