Part I of this article discusses the treatment of motions based on newly discovered evidence before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted and examines the drafting history of Rule 33. Part II shows that, until thirty years ago, the federal courts widely agreed that evidence newly obtained after trial, and not available earlier through due diligence, could be presented in a Rule 33(b)(1) motion without regard to whether it was relevant to innocence or to a violation of the defendant’s rights. Part III explains that, beginning in 1989, several circuits read IAC claims out of Rule 33(b)(1); that the Seventh Circuit in Evans, to broaden the impact of restrictions Congress imposed in 1996 on § 2255 motions, then barred assertion of constitutional or statutory claims in any Rule 33(b)(1) motion filed after the short window for filing an appeal; and that the Eighth Circuit in Rubashkin later closed off the rule for evidence that, although relevant to whether the defendant’s rights were violated, would not be admissible at a new trial. Part IV discusses the Seventh Circuit’s 2016 decision in O’Malley, which overruled Evans and permitted defendants to raise constitutional and statutory claims in Rule 33(b)(1) motions. Finally, Part V maintains that Rule 33(b)(1) should be construed to allow defendants to seek a new trial based on any evidence that, even if it does not bear on innocence, tends to demonstrate a violation of the accused’s constitutional rights, was obtained by the defense after trial, and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier through due diligence. Part V further argues that in many circumstances defendants claiming constitutional violations should not be required to show a probability of acquittal at a new trial.

中文翻译：

---

基于新发现的证据

本文的第一部分讨论了在《联邦刑事诉讼规则》通过之前对基于新发现的证据的动议的处理，并审查了规则 33 的起草历史。 第二部分表明，直到 30 年前，联邦法院广泛同意证据审判后新获得的，并且无法通过尽职调查提前获得的，可以在规则 33(b)(1) 的动议中提出，而不考虑它是否与无罪或侵犯被告的权利有关。第三部分解释说，从 1989 年开始，一些电路从规则 33(b)(1) 中读取了 IAC 的权利要求；埃文斯第七巡回法院，以扩大国会于 1996 年对第 2255 条动议施加的限制的影响，然后禁止在提出上诉的短暂窗口之后提出的任何规则 33(b)(1) 动议中提出宪法或法定要求；并且鲁巴什金第八巡回法院后来关闭了证据规则，尽管与被告的权利是否受到侵犯有关，但在新的审判中不会被采纳。第四部分讨论了第七巡回法院 2016 年在奥马利案中的裁决，该裁决否决了埃文斯，并允许被告在规则 33(b)(1) 动议中提出宪法和法定要求。最后，第五部分坚持认为，规则 33(b)(1) 应被解释为允许被告根据任何证据寻求新的审判，即使它与无罪无关，但往往表明侵犯了被告的宪法权利, 经庭审后被辩方取得, 并且无法通过尽职调查合理地提前获得。第五部分进一步争辩说，在许多情况下，不应该要求声称违反宪法的被告在新的审判中表现出无罪释放的可能性。