United States v. Bonilla, Crim. No. 79-153.
Citation | 503 F. Supp. 626 |
Decision Date | 29 August 1980 |
Docket Number | Crim. No. 79-153. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Antulio Parrilla BONILLA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
José A. Quiles, Asst. U. S. Atty., Hato Rey, P. R., for plaintiff.
Juan Mari Bras, Río Piedras, P. R., for defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
This case is before us pursuant to an Order of the Court of Appeals entered June 20, 1980 remanding this matter "for the purpose of ruling on ... Defendant's Motion for a new trial." See also: United States v. Antulio Parrilla Bonilla, 626 F.2d 177 at 178 (1st Cir. 1980).1
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
The nature of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss within Rule 33 is clearly apparent from its content. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of this Motion indicates that it "concerns newly-discovered evidence which could not have been discovered by trial counsel acting with due diligence."
These allegations relate to the indictment in January 1980 of one of the Government's witnesses in the present case, Navy Lieutenant Alex de la Zerda, for allegedly stealing government owned explosives, and for conspiring to bomb the Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico with an object "to threaten, intimidate and injure members of the Vieques Fishermen's Association of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, members of the Bar Association, members of Legal Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, and others because of past or future support for demonstrations in opposition to the Navy's use of the Island of Vieques as a gunnery range." See United States v. De la Zerda et al., 500 F.Supp. 301. Defendant contends that this charge, together with related evidence uncovered by the Government in the investigation of that case, put at issue the motives, bias and credibility of that witness when he testified at the present trial of Defendant for trespassing on the Navy's gunnery range in Vieques. It is claimed that "De la Zerda's involvement in the conspiracy totally discredits his testimony at trial, pollutes the waters of justice" and requires the setting aside of Defendant's conviction.
Although we note for purposes of the record that on July 9, 1980 a jury found Lt. De la Zerda and his alleged coconspirators not guilty of all charges, we shall not in any way consider said fact of any relevance to our conclusions in the present matter.
We start out with the proposition that a motion for new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence is not favored by the courts and should be viewed with great caution. United States v. Plum, 558 F.2d 568 (C.A. 10, 1977); United States v. Lombardozzi, 343 F.2d 127, 128 (C.A. 2, 1965), cert. den. 381 U.S. 938, 85 S.Ct. 1771, 14 L.Ed.2d 702 (1935); United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876, 879 (C.A. 2, 1958), cert. den. 357 U.S. 937, 78 S.Ct. 1385, 2 L.Ed.2d 1551 (1958); Weiss v. United States, 122 F.2d 675, 691 (C.A. 5, 1941), cert. den. 314 U.S. 687, 62 S.Ct. 300, 86 L.Ed. 550 (1941). This has led to the development of exacting standards which must be met by movants. They include that: "(1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial; (2) failure to learn of the evidence was not due to lack of diligence by the Defendants; (3) the evidence is material, and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) it will probably result in an acquittal upon retrial of the defendant." United States v. Wright, supra, at page 1018; Pelegrina v. United States, 601 F.2d 18, 20-21 (C.A. 1, 1979); cf. Berry v. State, 10 Ga. 511, 527 (1851). Where the motion for new trial is based on an allegation that a material witness testified falsely at trial, a less stringent test than that of "probability-of-reversal" is applied, and in its stead the so-called Larrison rule is used, which only requires that the court be "reasonably well satisfied" that the testimony was false, and that without the false testimony the jury "might have reached a different conclusion", Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82, 87 (C.A. 7, 1928); United States v. Wright, supra, at page 1020 (emphasis in the original). "The threshold for granting a new trial under Larrison is that the trial judge be satisfied that the testimony was perjured." United States v. Wright, supra.
Let us look at the facts of this case within this legal framework.
In our Decision and Order of April 2, 1980 previously referred to, we rely on the grounds stated for seeking remand in our ruling of that same day in United States v. Berkan, 502 F.Supp. 25, as supportive of similar action in this case. In Berkan, "the Court accepted that the witness whose testimony and motive are now being attacked was given credence and his testimony was used in findings of fact against the Defendant." See page 29 of Decision and Order entered April 2, 1980 in Criminal Number 79-152.
The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, entered on August 18, 1979 by the Court, on the merits of the charges against Defendant, are thus our reference point.
In this respect we first look at the testimony of another witness:
Lt. De la Zerda's contribution to this case came next:
Lt. De la Zerda was subjected to considerable cross-examination and voir dire.
Defendant was identified as within the prescribed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bradford v. Noble Drilling Co., Civ. A. No. 80-1781.
... ... et al ... Civ. A. No. 80-1781 ... United States District Court, E. D. Louisiana ... December 29, ... ...