United States v. Ferreira

USCA1 Opinion









March 28, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________


No. 93-1591




UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM L. FERREIRA,

Defendant, Appellant.


__________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Walter Jay Skinner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

___________________

Before

Torruella, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________

___________________

William L. Ferreira on brief pro se.
___________________
A. John Pappalardo, United States Attorney, and S. Theodore
__________________ ___________
Merritt, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
_______



__________________

__________________



















Per Curiam. Defendant/appellant William L. Ferreira was
__________

convicted of armed bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C. 2113(d),
___

conspiracy to commit bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C. 371, and
___

use of a firearm during a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C.
___

924(c). Following an aborted appeal from his conviction, and

approximately two years after mandate issued, Ferreira filed

a motion for new trial, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33,

based on the ground of newly discovered evidence. This

evidence is a sealed affidavit of FBI Special Agent James

Burleigh, which accompanied the government's opposition to

defendant's motion to quash a grand jury subpoena. The

district court denied the motion for new trial, and this

appeal followed.

Background

The following facts are undisputed. On October 18,

1988, the Bank of New England on Rockdale Street, Braintree,

Massachusetts was robbed. Shortly after the robbery,

Lieutenant Donald Murphy of the Braintree Police Department

observed four individuals descend an embankment in the South

Shore Shopping Plaza, speak briefly, and then depart in two

separate cars. Believing that these four persons were the

robbers, Lieutenant Murphy followed one of the two cars and

arrested its occupants--John Maguire and Thomas Kavanagh.

The next day, Lieutenant Murphy was shown a photographic

array, and identified Robert Hickey as the driver of the



-2-















other car. Approximately six weeks later, Ferreira

received a grand jury subpoena to appear in a lineup.

Ferreira filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming that

the subpoena was "nothing more than harassment for his past

activities."1 The government filed an opposition to the

motion, supported by Special Agent Burleigh's affidavit. The

affidavit was filed in camera, ex parte, and was subsequently
_________

sealed upon motion by the government.2 The district court

denied the motion to quash and ordered Ferreira to appear in

the line-up.

In a lineup conducted on December 19, 1988, Lieutenant

Murphy identified Ferreira as the fourth robber. That same

day, Ferreira was indicted by the grand jury. Evidence of

Lieutenant Murphy's identification of Ferreira at the lineup

was later introduced at trial. Ferreira was found guilty,

and he appealed. The appeal was dismissed on January 16,

1991, upon Ferreira's motion for voluntary dismissal.

On June 2, 1992, the government provided Ferreira with a

copy of Special Agent Burleigh's sealed affidavit. Ferreira

then filed a motion for new trial contending, inter alia,
_____ ____


____________________

1. In particular, Ferreira contended that the sole basis for
the subpoena was his previous criminal record for bank
robbery and his relationship with the other suspects. The
other suspects were acquaintances from Ferreira's old
neighborhood. One of the suspects, Hickey, is Ferreira's
brother-in-law, and had been his co-defendant in a previous
bank robbery case.

2. Ferriera unsuccessfully sought access to the affidavit.

-3-















that the affidavit contained two misleading statements and

omitted material information. Ferreira further argued that

if the district court had been made aware of these alleged

falsehoods, the court would have granted the motion to quash,

the lineup would not have occurred, and the government would

not have had enough evidence to make a case against him. The

district court denied the motion for new trial on the grounds

that "the motion to quash the grand jury subpoena was without

basis and should have been denied regardless of the

affidavit."3

DISCUSSION

It is well-established that a motion for new trial based

on newly discovered evidence will be denied unless the moving

party can establish each facet of the following four-part

test:

(1) the evidence was unknown or unavailable to the
defendant at the time of trial; (2) the failure to
learn of it was not a result of the defendant's
poor diligence; (3) the new evidence is material;
and (4) the impact of the new evidence is so strong
that an acquittal would probably result upon
retrial.


____________________

3. Ferreira's remaining arguments in his motion for new
trial, which we do not detail here, were not addressed by the
district court. None of these remaining claims are based on
newly discovered evidence, and Ferreira does not attempt to
argue otherwise. Accordingly, these claims are barred by
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33's seven day time limit, and the district
court lacked jurisdiction to consider them. See United
___ ______
States v. Lema, 909 F.2d 561, 565 (1st Cir. 1990) (stating
______ ____
that Rule 33, which provides seven days in which a motion for
new trial may be filed, unless based on newly discovered
evidence, is jurisdictional).

-4-















United States v. Slade, 980 F.2d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 1992). We
_____________ _____

will not disturb the disposition of a new trial motion unless

the district court abused its discretion or misapplied the

law. United States v. Rothrock, 806 F.2d 318, 321 (1st Cir.
_____________ ________

1986). We find no such error here.

The investigatory powers of the grand jury, although not

unlimited, are necessarily broad. See United States v. R.
___ _____________ __

Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991) (stating that the
______________

function of the grand jury is to inquire into all information

that might possibly bear on its investigation); United States
_____________

v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 15 (1973) (recognizing that the
________

grand jury's investigatory powers include the right to "act

on tips, rumors, evidence offered by the prosecutor, or their

own personal knowledge"). We have explicitly recognized the

power of the grand jury to direct witnesses to appear in a

lineup. In re Melvin, 550 F.2d 674 (1st Cir. 1977).
______________

Although a judge, acting pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c),

has the power to quash a subpoena if compliance would be

unreasonable or oppressive, "a grand jury subpoena issued

through normal channels is presumed to be reasonable, and the

burden of showing unreasonableness must be on the recipient

who seeks to avoid compliance." R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S.
________________

at 301.

In his motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, Ferreira

utterly failed to meet his burden of showing



-5-















unreasonableness. See In re Pantojas, 628 F.2d 701, 704 (1st
___ ______________

Cir. 1980) (ruling that appellant who claimed that grand jury

investigation was being used by prosecutor to harass him

failed to carry his burden to demonstrate why lineup could

not be of use to grand jury). Indeed, his association with

the other suspects and, in particular, his connection with

Hickey, with whom he had once committed a similar crime,

support the legitimacy of the subpoena. See United States v.
___ _____________

Sheehan, 583 F.2d 30, 32 (1st Cir. 1978) (commenting that it
_______

would seem to be respectable police work to check out known

associates of a suspect in a bank robbery committed by

several people). But cf. In re Melvin, 550 F.2d at 677
________ _____________

(suggesting that it might be an abuse of the grand juries'

power "to call certain individuals with known criminal

proclivities to appear repeatedly in lineups") (emphasis
__________

added).

In sum, we agree with the district court that Ferreira's

motion to quash should have been denied regardless of the

challenged affidavit.4 Since the new evidence would not

have produced a different result below, defendant's new trial








____________________

4. In so ruling, we refrain, as did the district court, from
making any comment on whether the challenged representations
in the affidavit were misleading.

-6-















motion fails to meet the materiality prong of the four part

test. Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.5

Affirmed.
_________








































____________________

5. We also reject Ferreira's claim that he should have been
given a hearing on his motion for new trial. Rule 33 motions
are frequently ruled upon without hearing, see Lema, 909 F.2d
___ ____
at 568 n.10, and there was no need to conduct an evidentiary
hearing here.

-7-