A. The Motion
On October 11, 2011, Defendant Harris, pro se, filed a Motion for a New Trial (Doc. 240). The Defendant’s motion states that he is seeking a new trial “on the grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence.” (Doc. 240 at 1). Along with his motion he filed a 85-page memorandum of law (Doc. 240, Attachment 1 (“Memo”)), a 52-page affidavit from himself (Doc. 240, Attachment 2) (“Harris Aff.”), over 120 exhibits to the Harris Aff. (Doc. 240, Attachments 3-126), and an affidavit from his wife, Anissa Jarrett, along with three other attachments to that affidavit (Doc. 240, Attachment 127 (“Jarrett Aff.”)).
However, of the over one thousand total pages that he filed, all the Defendant identifies as “newly discovered evidence” are two documents totaling less than 30 pages – “NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE EXHIBIT #1,” and “NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE EXHIBIT #2” – which are the first two exhibits attached to the Jarrett Aff. (See Motion, pages 2-3; Jarrett Aff., pages 3-22).
According to the Defendant’s wife, she discovered these documents on the internet on September 4, 2011, three months after trial, while “assisting the defendant.” (Jarrett Aff. ¶ 2). The Defendant claims that these two documents were “first brought to my attention on September 4 2011. I reasonably believed I had thoroughly investigated the possibilities for all such evidence.” (Harris Aff. ¶ 7).
The Defendant does not claim that any of the over one hundred other exhibits that he filed are “newly discovered,” and in fact most of them bear bates numbers reflecting that they were produced in discovery in this case. Even the few documents that do not bear bates numbers appear to be copies of documents that were produced in the case. (Compare, e.g., Ex. 240-96, which has no bates numbering, with the document previously produced in discovery at GEE-ED-1121 – GEE-ED-1128 (attached as Ex. A to this response1) which appears to be the same document or a copy).
The first supposedly newly-discovered document, according to the Defendant, “is a web archive of the original Waatle Holdings Corp shareholders online stock ledger.” (Doc. 240 at page 2).
The second supposedly newly-discovered document is a copy of an annual corporate filing by Waatle Holdings, as obtained from the website of the State of Arizona’s Office of Secretary of State.
Far from being documents about which the Defendant just now learned, the Defendant explains that he himself prepared these documents and posted them online when they were originally created, supposedly in 2004 or 2005. (Memo at 6).
[...]
more
Extract -
Doc 247 PDF file
viewer.zoho.com |
