Also known as: newly-discovered evidence · fresh evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence that with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under the governing procedural rules.
Nigel Nelson sued Nexus Technologies for patent infringement. Six months after judgment he received internal emails from a former engineer showing the defendant had concealed prior art during discovery. The court granted relief because the emails could not have been found earlier despite diligent efforts.
Nina Nielsen was convicted after a bench trial. Just under three years after the verdict her counsel obtained newly decrypted chat logs showing the key government witness had discussed only public information. The motion for a new trial was filed within the three-year window.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Noreen Nguyen moved for a new trial twenty days after verdict citing the judge's mid-trial comments. Because the claim rested on grounds other than newly discovered evidence the fourteen-day deadline barred consideration of the motion.
Natasha Nielsen challenged her conviction on ineffective-assistance grounds. The court compared the prejudice standard to the high bar applied when a defendant seeks relief based on newly discovered evidence that would probably have changed the outcome.
Nestor Navarro obtained a final judgment. Congress later enacted a statute directing courts to reopen certain cases on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The Court held that such a command impermissibly required Article III courts to revise their own final judgments.
Nathaniel Newman was convicted on the testimony of a cooperating witness. After trial the defense learned the government had failed to disclose the witness's plea agreement. The nondisclosure of this impeachment evidence supported a new-trial claim.
In civil cases the motion must be filed within one year of judgment under Rule 60(b). In criminal cases the motion must be filed within three years after the verdict or finding of guilty. If an appeal is pending the district court may not grant the motion until the appellate court remands the case.
The evidence must be something that could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence. Courts deny relief when the moving party could have uncovered the material through ordinary discovery or investigation before judgment.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1) a second or successive motion may be certified if it contains newly discovered evidence that, viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty.
…in criminal proceedings. Moreover, it comports with the widely used standard for assessing motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19-20, and nn. 10, 11. Nevertheless, the standard is not quite appropriate. Even when the specified attorney error results in the omission of…