United States v Jordan

Jordan appealed the denial of his Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The panel affirmed. It held that the evidence presented by Jordan at the hearing was insufficient to justify a new trial as evidence another person touched the murder weapon was presented at the first trial and the statements by another prisoner confessing to the crime were inconsistent and the prisoner had incentives to lie as he felt federal prison would be better for him than state prison and thus he was not credible. As two witnesses at trial testified Jordon stabbed the victim, acquittal is not likely if a new trial was granted and thus denial of the motion was proper.