United States v. Tyrone Moore
709 F.3d 287
4th Cir.2013Background
- Moore was convicted of carjacking, using a firearm in furtherance of carjacking, and conspiracy; the district court denied his Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- The Roarty carjacking occurred November 25, 2007; the assailant wore a hat and bandana, and Roarty could only identify the suspect's eyes.
- Pollin, detained with Walton, drove Roarty’s Jeep three days after the carjacking; a photo array led Roarty to identify Moore, focusing on the eyes.
- Post-trial, Moore learned the Short Hair Picture (Pollin with short hair) was dated December 31, 2007, while the Dreadlocks Picture showed Pollin with dreadlocks; both photos originated from Harford County’s files.
- Harford County used a booking-photo system that replaced electronic images when appearances changed, making the Short Hair Picture actually taken in January 2009; Pollin had dreadlocks until January 2009.
- The district court treated the new dates as not material, but the Fourth Circuit held the newly discovered evidence could be material and warranted a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new-trial decision properly weighed materiality | Moore | Moore | District court erred; evidence is material |
| Whether the actual dates of the photographs were material to identity | Moore | Moore | Yes; material to identify the carjacker |
| Whether the 404(b) admission of the semi-automatic pistol evidence was error | Moore | United States | Error; not admissible under Rule 404(b) for this purpose |
| Whether the 404(b) admission of the revolver testimony was permissible | Moore | United States | Not error; revolver evidence relevant and necessary to proof of possession |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chavis, 880 F.2d 788 (4th Cir. 1989) (five-factor test for new-trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 33 motions)
- United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941 (4th Cir. 2010) (materiality prong—evidence must be material to issues)
- United States v. Piazza, 647 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2011) (evidence is material when it bears on identity)
- United States v. LeCompte, 131 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 1997) (possible admissibility under different rules on retrial)
- United States v. Byers, 649 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2011) (Rule 404(b) admissibility—purpose beyond propensity)
- United States v. Hawkins, 589 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2009) (Rule 404(b) evidence admissibility principles)
- United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620 (4th Cir. 2004) (affirm on any ground in record; standard of review)
- United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2008) (admissibility considerations under Rule 404(b))