United States v. William Zamastil

Ninth Circuit

United States v. William Zamastil

671 F. App'x 621

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2016

Docket15-10585

StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 621 (United States v. William Zamastil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. William Zamastil, 671 F. App'x 621 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

On July 28, 2011, a jury found Zamastil guilty of first-degree murder for the 1973 kidnaping, rape, and murder of the daughter of an FBI agent. We previously affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. United States v. Zamastil, 550 Fed.Appx. 446, 450 (9th Cir. 2013). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for a new trial and his motion for an evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1.Zamastil argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the basis on newly acquired evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. However, the district court’s ruling that the additional evidence would not indicate that the defendant would “probably be acquitted in a new trial” in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263-64 (9th Cir. 2009). For the same reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold a second evidentiary hearing on the matter.

2. Zamastil argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). However, even assuming that the government withheld evidence that falls under Brady’s, umbrella of being favorable to the defendant, Zamastil has failed to meet his burden of showing a reasonable probability that the disclosure would have led to a different result or undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. See United States v. Rodriguez, 766 F.3d 970, 988 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jernigan, 492 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2007).

3. Zamastil argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). However, Zamastil failed to show that the government witness’s statements were false. See Rodriguez, 766 F.3d at 990.

AFFIRMED.

***

Thisdisposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

On July 28, 2011, a jury found Zamastil guilty of first-degree murder for the 1973 kidnaping, rape, and murder of the daughter of an FBI agent. We previously affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. United States v. Zamastil, 550 Fed.Appx. 446, 450 (9th Cir. 2013). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for a new trial and his motion for an evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1.Zamastil argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the basis on newly acquired evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. However, the district court’s ruling that the additional evidence would not indicate that the defendant would “probably be acquitted in a new trial” in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263-64 (9th Cir. 2009). For the same reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold a second evidentiary hearing on the matter.

2. Zamastil argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). However, even assuming that the government withheld evidence that falls under Brady’s, umbrella of being favorable to the defendant, Zamastil has failed to meet his burden of showing a reasonable probability that the disclosure would have led to a different result or undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. See United States v. Rodriguez, 766 F.3d 970, 988 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jernigan, 492 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2007).

3. Zamastil argues that he is entitled to a new trial under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). However, Zamastil failed to show that the government witness’s statements were false. See Rodriguez, 766 F.3d at 990.

AFFIRMED.

***

Thisdisposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-zamastil-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack