Filed: Jun. 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-30907 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BETTY L. WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-302-ALL-B June 22, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Betty Washington appeals the denial of her motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.1 Washington challe
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-30907 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BETTY L. WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-302-ALL-B June 22, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Betty Washington appeals the denial of her motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.1 Washington challen..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30907
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BETTY L. WASHINGTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-302-ALL-B
June 22, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Betty Washington appeals the denial of her motion for new
trial based upon newly discovered evidence.1 Washington challenges
her conviction for bankruptcy fraud, arguing that "newly discovered
evidence" destroyed the credibility of one of the Government's
witnesses. We are unpersuaded and now affirm.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 (2001).
This Court reviews the denial of a motion for new trial for
abuse of discretion.2 To receive a new trial on the basis of newly
discovered evidence, Washington must prove that (1) the evidence
is newly discovered and was unknown to her at the time of trial;
(2) failure to detect the evidence was not due to a lack of
diligence on her part; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or
impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence
introduced at a new trial would probably produce an acquittal.3 A
motion for new trial must be denied if all parts of this test are
not satisfied.4
After a careful review of the applicable law and appellate
record, we find that the district court's ruling was not an abuse
of discretion.5
AFFIRMED.
2
See United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo,
8 F.3d 202, 212 (5th
Cir. 1993).
3
See United States v. Jaramillo,
42 F.3d 920, 924-25 (5th
Cir. 1995).
4
See
id.
5
See id.
2