United States v. Jonathan Woods, No. 21-3547 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant, a former state senator, and others were convicted of several offenses related to bribery and kickback schemes involving state funds. Approximately six months after the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion affirming Defendant’s convictions and four months after issuing a mandate, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 alleging that newly discovered evidence demonstrated violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The district court determined that evidence concerning the vetting was neither material nor exculpatory.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that given the evidence actually adduced at trial, the court agrees that disclosure of the vetting by a co-conspirator and further evidence as to her qualifications would not have created a “reasonable probability” of a different outcome at trial. Further, the court also agreed that the evidence in question—notes from an investigator referencing a discussion of the vetting with another co-conspirator—was not exculpatory. On balance, the notes tended to buttress rather than rebut the government’s theory of the case
Court Description: [Melloy, Author, with Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. For the court's opinion in defendant's direct criminal appeal, see U.S. v. Woods, 978 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2020). The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence as the material was neither material nor exculpatory.
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.