United States v. Tony Wong, Victor Ventura, Rigoberto Ramos and Pedro Taveras, Roberto Figueroa, Also Known as Cessi, and Hector Rivera

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a new trial was not required because the evidence of perjury was “the sort of cumulative impeachment material that is routinely held insufficient”
• holding that “new impeachment evidence may satisfy the ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard where a conviction depends on the testimony of a single government witness, or on a witness whose credibility was not attacked on cross examination”
• stating that “[t]he court gives complete deference to state court findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous”
• remarking that the supposedly perjured testimony, concerning whether the witness had filed a tax return for the previous year, was a collateral matter not relevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendant
• affirming denial of new trial because “circumstances do not suggest that the undisclosed evidence of [a star witness’s] perjury would have affected the result”
• affirming denial of Rule 33 motion where defense counsel had “sufficient ammunition” concerning government witness’s credibility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).