United States v. Pri-Har

Second Circuit

United States v. Pri-Har

10 F. App'x 4

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 2001

DocketDocket No. 00-1573

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 F. App'x 4 (United States v. Pri-Har) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Pri-Har, 10 F. App'x 4 (2d Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Menachem Pri-Har appeals from a judgment of the District Court denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Pri-Har argues that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion because: (1) he proffered “newly discovered” evidence that would have led to his acquittal; and (2) the Government suppressed this evidence, in violation of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and knowingly presented false testimony and arguments relating to this evidence.

After reviewing the record, we affirm the District Court’s judgment substantially for the reasons provided in its February 9, 2000 opinion. See Pri-Har v. United States, 83 F.Supp.2d 393 (S.D.N.Y.2000). As the District Court found, much of Pri-Har’s “newly discovered” evidence was not exculpatory within the meaning of Rule 33 or Brady. See id. at 400-04. Moreover, Pri-Har failed to show that he was unable to discover before or during trial much of this evidence with the exercise of due diligence. Finally, we agree with the District Court that, in light of the substantial evidence of Pri-Har’s guilt, none of the evidence was sufficient to impugn the validity of the jury’s verdict. See id. at 404-05.

Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, and its judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and is AFFIRMED.

Defendant Menachem Pri-Har appeals from a judgment of the District Court denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. Pri-Har argues that the District Court abused its discretion in denying his motion because: (1) he proffered “newly discovered” evidence that would have led to his acquittal; and (2) the Government suppressed this evidence, in violation of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and knowingly presented false testimony and arguments relating to this evidence.

After reviewing the record, we affirm the District Court’s judgment substantially for the reasons provided in its February 9, 2000 opinion. See Pri-Har v. United States, 83 F.Supp.2d 393 (S.D.N.Y.2000). As the District Court found, much of Pri-Har’s “newly discovered” evidence was not exculpatory within the meaning of Rule 33 or Brady. See id. at 400-04. Moreover, Pri-Har failed to show that he was unable to discover before or during trial much of this evidence with the exercise of due diligence. Finally, we agree with the District Court that, in light of the substantial evidence of Pri-Har’s guilt, none of the evidence was sufficient to impugn the validity of the jury’s verdict. See id. at 404-05.

Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, and its judgment is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-pri-har-ca2-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack