IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-11072
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHYANN FINE BRATCHER;
BRENDA ROBERTSON FINE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:95-CR-9
- - - - - - - - - -
July 8, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chyann Fine Bratcher and Brenda Robertson Fine appeal their
convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, several counts
of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit murder, and aiding and
abetting murder with premeditation and malice aforethought.**
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
**
Each defendant-appellant has adopted the issues and
arguments raised in the other appellant's brief. See Fed.
R. App. P. 28(i).
No. 95-11072
-2-
Bratcher argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the convictions for conspiracy to murder and for aiding
and abetting murder. Our review of the record confirms that
there was more than sufficient evidence to sustain these counts
of conviction. See United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310
(5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 898 (1992). Fine's
adoption of Bratcher's sufficiency argument is insufficient,
without more, to raise the argument as to Fine. See United
States v. Harris, 932 F.2d 1529, 1533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
502 U.S. 897 (1991).
Bratcher and Fine argue that the district court abused its
discretion by disallowing the expert testimony concerning the
polygraph examination of Thomas Earl Fine, Jr. (Tommy). The
argument is premised upon caselaw being sufficient to establish
the requisite reliability of proffered expert testimony pursuant
to Fed. R. Evid. 702. This premise is contrary to United States
v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428, 434 (5th Cir. 1995). Our review of the
record detects no abuse of discretion in the district court's
ruling. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.
Ct. 2786, 2796-97 (1993).
Bratcher and Fine argue that the district court abused its
discretion by denying their joint motion for a new trial based on
newly discovered evidence, namely, Tommy's affidavit and hearing
testimony recanting his earlier testimony. In light of the
No. 95-11072
-3-
district court's credibility determination, made from the best
position to evaluate the new evidence in light of the whole
record of the trial over which the district court presided, we
find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. MMR Corp., 954
F.2d 1040, 1049-50 (5th Cir. 1992). Bratcher and Fine's
remaining argument, that the prosecution should be barred,
pursuant to the Due Process Clause, based on the purported
outrageous government conduct, is without merit.
AFFIRMED.