Ross Green v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Ross Green's motion for a new trial following his bench-trial conviction for possession of MDMC with intent to distribute. The court held that Green's post-trial expert affidavits did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting a new trial in the interests of justice and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without a hearing. A dissent would have remanded for further consideration and clarification of the motion.

Holdings

1. Sufficiency is evaluated on the evidence actually before the fact-finder when it found the defendant guilty, not on a hypothetical record including evidence later submitted with a motion for a new trial.
2. The government forfeited any objection that the motion was untimely for purposes of the interests-of-justice standard, so the court considered the motion under that standard rather than the stricter newly-discovered-evidence standard.
3. A new trial in the interests of justice is warranted only when exceptional circumstances prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial.
4. Green did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting a new trial because the post-trial evidence was available before trial and his motion reflected dissatisfaction with, and an attempted improvement of, his trial defense rather than interference with his ability to receive a fair trial.
5. The trial court was not required to hold a hearing before denying the Rule 33 motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence actually presented at trial was sufficient to support Green's conviction for possession of MDMC with intent to distribute.
2. Whether the government forfeited reliance on the time limit for an interests-of-justice motion under Superior Court Criminal Rule 33.
3. Whether Green established exceptional circumstances warranting a new trial in the interests of justice.
4. Whether the trial court was required to hold a hearing before denying the Rule 33 motion.
5. Whether, following a bench trial, the trial court could vacate the judgment, take additional testimony, and direct entry of a new judgment under Rule 33.

Disposition

affirmed