Also known as: noviter perventum · newly discovered evidence
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Newly discovered facts or evidence that could not have been found earlier through reasonable diligence. Such material may support reopening a closed case or obtaining post-judgment relief when it meets the applicable procedural standards for timeliness and materiality.
After judgment against Apex Machine Tools, the company learns that a juror concealed her own pending suit against a similar manufacturer. Apex promptly moves under the rule for relief based on this information that could not have been discovered earlier despite diligent voir dire. The court treats the motion as timely and grants a new trial because the nondisclosure meets the standard for newly discovered evidence warranting relief.
Nearly three years after Peggy's conviction, newly decrypted chat logs surface showing the key witness may have discussed only public information. Peggy files a motion grounded on this evidence within the three-year window. Because an appeal remains pending, the district court lacks authority to grant relief until the appellate court remands the case.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Twenty days after a bench-trial verdict, defense counsel moves for a new trial citing the judge's mid-trial comments as evidence of bias. This ground rests on matters known at trial rather than newly discovered evidence. The court denies the motion because it was filed outside the fourteen-day limit that applies to all grounds other than newly discovered evidence.
After judgment in the aluminum industry case, a party uncovers internal documents showing market allocation that could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence. The party moves to reopen the record on the basis of this material. The court considers whether the evidence satisfies the requirements for newly discovered facts that justify relief from the final judgment.
After his conviction is affirmed, Allen discovers records indicating that key prosecution testimony was fabricated. He files a habeas petition asserting that this newly discovered evidence would have changed the outcome. The court evaluates whether the material meets the standard for relief based on facts that could not have been uncovered earlier despite diligent investigation.
Years after his capital conviction, Herrera obtains affidavits from multiple witnesses recanting their trial testimony and identifying another perpetrator. He seeks relief on the ground that this newly discovered evidence establishes his innocence by clear and convincing proof. The court assesses whether the affidavits satisfy the demanding standard required to reopen a final judgment on the basis of facts unavailable at trial.
A motion under Rule 60(b)(2) must be filed within a reasonable time and no more than one year after entry of judgment. The evidence must be newly discovered and could not have been found earlier with reasonable diligence in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).
Under Rule 33(b)(1), 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.
Courts require that the newly discovered evidence be material and likely to produce a different result. Mere impeachment evidence that does not undermine the core of the prosecution's case or the judgment usually fails to satisfy the standard for reopening the proceeding.
Leave to amend is governed by the liberal standard of Rule 15, not by the post-judgment standards for newly discovered evidence. A party may obtain leave when justice so requires, but the court considers undue delay and prejudice rather than the strict diligence and materiality tests that apply to Rule 60 or Rule 33 motions.
…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…