Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 11-7466
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00033-JFM-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Donald Griffin (Griffin) was
convicted
of
carjacking,
18
U.S.C.
2119,
possession
of
On direct appeal, we
We affirm.
Under
Rule
33,
[u]pon
the
defendants
motion,
the
court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the
interest of justice so requires.
Rule
verdict
added).
To
or
finding
receive
of
guilty.
new
trial
Id.
based
33(b)(1)
on
newly
(emphasis
discovered
is
uncovering
newly
it;
(3)
discovered;
the
(2)
evidence
is
he
has
not
been
merely
diligent
in
cumulative
or
(5)
the
evidence
would
probably
2
produce
an
acquittal.
United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 374 (4th Cir. 2010).
We
proffer
of
Id.
newly
discovered
evidence
in
(J.A. 15).
immediately
after
Fraling
pled
guilty,
Griffin
witness
for
the
defense.
The
record
is
undisputed
that
called
his
Fifth
to
testify
during
Amendment
right
Griffins
against
trial,
he
would
self-incrimination
the
The
We
denied
criminal
any
participation
activity
on
in
October
the
31,
carjacking
2007,
as
and
related
charged
in
the
should
afford
him
new
trial.
fortiori,
such
fact
that
Fraling
invoked
his
Fifth
Amendment
upon
declaration
plain
into
language
newly
reading
discovered
of
the
evidence.
term
newly
Cir. 2007); United States v. Jasin, 280 F.3d 355, 367-68 (3d
Cir. 2002); United States v. Freeman, 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.
1996); United States v. Theodosopoulos, 48 F.3d 1438, 1448-49
(7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Glover, 21 F.3d 133, 138 (6th
Cir. 1994); United States v. Muldrow, 19 F.3d 1332, 1339 (10th
Cir. 1994); United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1188
(9th Cir. 1992); United States v. DiBernardo, 880 F.2d 1216,
1224-25 (11th Cir. 1989).
invoked
his
Fifth
Amendment
right
not
to
testify
during
newly
decision
discovered
involved
was
reasonable,
deficient
and
fact-finding
nothing
or
about
such
violation
of
him
regarding
the
newly
discovered
evidence
issue.
of
Appeals
for
the
First
5
Circuit
in
United
States
v.
We
with
the
plain
and
unambiguous
term
newly
If the defendant
argument
that
newly
available
evidence
is
synonymous
with
newly
discovered
evidence
but
says
nothing
about
newly
district
court
that
available evidence).
Because
we
agree
with
the
Griffins
argument
that
the
district
court
We also
committed
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED