United States v. Sheffield
842 F. Supp. 2d 227
D.D.C.2012Background
- Sheffield was convicted of unlawful possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of PCP (25 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(iv)) after a lemon juice bottle containing eight ounces of PCP was seized from a vehicle.
- MPD separated approximately one ounce of PCP to send to the DEA for testing; the remaining seven ounces were reportedly set for destruction.
- Trial evidence showed the lemon juice bottle contained PCP; MPD chain-of-custody and storage procedures were documented, and photographs and a DEA chemist testified to PCP testing.
- Before trial, Sheffield moved in limine to exclude the drug evidence on grounds the seven ounces were destroyed contrary to 28 C.F.R. § 50.21; the court denied this motion.
- During trial, seven ounces were later produced for viewing; government claimed the seven ounces were awaiting destruction and then located before trial.
- Forty-one days after verdict, Sheffield moved for an order directing MPD to submit the lemon juice bottle to the DEA for testing; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remaining PCP evidence constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial. | Sheffield argues testing could show a different drug mass or identity. | Sheffield contends testing could alter trial outcomes and suppress aggravating factors. | Denied; testing would not yield acquittal or prejudice avoidance. |
| Whether 28 C.F.R. § 50.21 applies to MPD actions and supports testing relief. | Sheffield relied on §50.21 as controlling authority. | Court had previously held §50.21 does not apply to MPD. | Denial upheld; regulation inapplicable to MPD actions. |
| Whether testing would establish the drugs tested at trial were the same as seized. | Testing could corroborate the chain of custody and identity. | Existing testimony and photographs already establish identity; testing would not change results. | Denied; testing would not rebut trial evidence or affect identity. |
| Whether the five-factor test for newly discovered evidence is satisfied. | New evidence discovered post-trial, pursued diligently, non-cumulative, material, likely to produce acquittal. | Evidence is cumulative and would not likely change verdict. | Denied; factors not satisfied to warrant a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pettiford, 517 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (new-trial standard for newly discovered evidence requires five-factor test)
- Williams, 233 F.3d 592 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (new trial denial where other evidence supports conviction despite error)
- Johnson, 519 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (five-factor test applied to newly discovered evidence)
- Ortiz, 136 F.3d 161 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (materiality and existence of evidence as of trial time for newly discovered evidence claims)
- Lafayette, 983 F.2d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (five-factor test framework for new-trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Thompson, 188 F.2d 652 (D.C. Cir. 1951) (early articulation of standards for new-trial based on new evidence)