Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Unpublished United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms Won Shik Lim's conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion. The court found that a co-conspirator's post-trial affidavit claiming Lim was not present at an alleged extortion was not "newly discovered evidence" that would have changed the trial outcome. Additionally, the court ruled the government did not violate Lim's due process rights by allegedly failing to disclose prior statements by the co-conspirator, because the result of the trial would not have been different given compelling victim testimony. The conviction is affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    This unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms Won Shik Lim's conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion. The court found that a co-conspirator's post-trial affidavit claiming Lim was not present at an alleged extortion was not "newly discovered evidence" that would have changed the trial outcome. Additionally, the court ruled the government did not violate Lim's due process rights by allegedly failing to disclose prior statements by the co-conspirator, because the result of the trial would not have been different given compelling victim testimony. The conviction is affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1997-07-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-4010

    Original Title

    United States v. Lim, 4th Cir. (1997)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms Won Shik Lim's conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion. The court found that a co-conspirator's post-trial affidavit claiming Lim was not present at an alleged extortion was not "newly discovered evidence" that would have changed the trial outcome. Additionally, the court ruled the government did not violate Lim's due process rights by allegedly failing to disclose prior statements by the co-conspirator, because the result of the trial would not have been different given compelling victim testimony. The conviction is affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    10 views3 pages

    Unpublished United States Court of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms Won Shik Lim's conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion. The court found that a co-conspirator's post-trial affidavit claiming Lim was not present at an alleged extortion was not "newly discovered evidence" that would have changed the trial outcome. Additionally, the court ruled the government did not violate Lim's due process rights by allegedly failing to disclose prior statements by the co-conspirator, because the result of the trial would not have been different given compelling victim testimony. The conviction is affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.

    No. 96-4010

    WON SHIK LIM,


    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
    (CR-93-203)
    Submitted: June 19, 1997
    Decided: July 7, 1997
    Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Blair D. Howard, HOWARD, LEINO & HOWARD, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,
    Robert A. Spencer, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Won Shik Lim appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit
    extortion and attempted extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951
    (1994). Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
    After his conviction Lim moved for a new trial based upon newly
    discovered evidence. The newly discovered evidence was an affidavit
    from a co-conspirator, Chang Hyun Lee, stating that Lim was not
    present during an extortion that was alleged to have taken place on
    July 13, 1992. Lee had originally told FBI agents that Lim was present at the extortion. There is no evidence, other than this affidavit,
    that Lee told government agents before trial that Lim was not present
    at the extortion and therefore no such information was disclosed to
    defense counsel. Lee testified for one of Lim's co-defendants at trial
    but was not asked about Lim's presence at the restaurant.
    We agree with the district court which denied Lim's motion that
    the affidavit does not qualify as newly discovered evidence because
    Lim's counsel had the opportunity to question Lee before trial and
    that the affidavit would probably not result in an acquittal at a new
    trial. See United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1993)
    (setting out five-part test of newly discovered evidence). We find no
    abuse of discretion to the denial of the motion.
    Lim also asserts that the Government violated his due process
    rights by failing to turn over to him the exculpatory statements made
    by Lee prior to trial as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
    (1963). This claim was the subject of another motion for new trial
    which the district court denied. The district court properly found that
    Lim's due process rights were not violated because even if the statements were made before trial and turned over to defense counsel prior
    to trial, the result of the trial would not have been different because
    2

    of compelling testimony from the victim of the extortion. See United


    States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985) (evidence material under
    Brady when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence
    been disclosed, the result of proceeding would have been different).
    In addition, the evidence in question was available to the Defendant
    from another source. See United States v. Wilson , 901 F.2d 378, 380
    (4th Cir. 1990). We therefore find that the Government did not violate
    Lim's due process rights.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3

    You might also like