Unpublished Disposition, 904 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Aleksandrs v. LAURINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-1464.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 14, 1990.Decided June 4, 1990.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Aleksandrs Laurins appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial based upon evidence asserted to be newly discovered. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
The case was tried before a jury in 1987, and Laurins was convicted of two counts of an indictment charging obstruction of justice and contempt of court. The facts are reported in United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 3215 (1989).
Shortly after his conviction was affirmed in this court, Laurins filed in the district court the present motion for a new trial. The motion included a number of factual assertions about several boxes of corporate records which, Laurins claimed, were not discovered before the trial and could shed new light on his various defenses. The trial court rejected the motion because, whether or not the judge believed Laurin's explanation of the whereabouts of the documents, there was insufficient showing that the newly discovered evidence would have had a substantial impact upon the original trial if the evidence had become available earlier. We have found nothing in the record to indicate that the trial judge erred in assessing the materiality of the documents nor in any credibility evaluation the judge made in rejecting the defendant's explanation of the reappearance of records over which the defendant earlier had professed to have had no control.
Laurins also briefed and argued a claim that the government wrongfully withheld exculpatory evidence in a manner inconsistent with the teaching of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The record fails to support this claim.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
