STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET

CUMBERLAND, SS. DOCKET NO:

STATE OF MAINE )
)
) DEFENDANT’S MOTION
V. ) FOR NEW TRIAL
)
)
JOHN WILLIAMS )

NOW COMES the Defendant, by and through his attorney and pursuant to Unified Rule

of Criminal Procedure 33 respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant him a new trial

and states the following in support thereof:

On February 28, 2019, Trooper Tyler Maloon, a member of the arrest team, testified at

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Hearing. Trooper Maloon also testified during Defendant’s

trial. At issue in Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and trial was the voluntariness of Defendant’s

statements to detectives after his arrest. Defendant maintained that the beating and threats he

sustained at the hands of arresting officers caused him to be fearful of further beatings if he

refused to cooperate with the interrogating detectives. The Court’s findings, in mostly denying

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, rested significantly on what the Court found to be the

interrogating officers’ lack of threatening behavior towards Defendant. Defendant maintained

that it was the behavior of officers during the arrest that caused him to fear further physical harm

if he did not comply with the interrogating officers, but the Court rejected that argument.

Unbeknownst to Defendant, one day before his testimony at the suppression hearing,

Trooper Maloon was disciplined for failing to provide notice to his chain of command of a

potential act of misconduct and to provide proper documentation of the misconduct. While the

disciplinary report does not reference the John Williams incident, it seems highly likely given the

1
nature of the discipline and its’ timing that it was related to the misconduct of one or more

officers during the arrest of Williams.

A defendant's right to due process is violated when the prosecution suppresses evidence

that is both favorable to the accused and material either to guilt or innocence. See United States

v. Raymundí-Hernández, 984 F.3d 127 (1st Cir. 2020)(citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83

S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31

L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972)). The government's disclosure obligations under Brady also extend to

evidence that the defense could have used to impeach the prosecution's key

witnesses. Id. (citing Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154). This is an independent duty of the prosecution that

exists regardless of whether the defendant requests favorable evidence from the government. Id.

To prevail on a Brady or Giglio claim, the defendant must establish three conditions:

"[t]he evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or

because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully

or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued. Id. Unlike the sufficiency of the evidence

test, the prejudice element in this test considers whether in the absence of the suppressed

evidence, the defendant "received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of

confidence." Id. When a defendant's challenge is based on newly discovered evidence under

Brady or Giglio, he must also establish that it "was unknown or unavailable to him at the time of

trial," and that his inability to discover the evidence was not the product of his own "lack of

diligence. Id.

The State had an obligation to provide this significant information to the Defendant, with

or without a request to do so. It is unclear as to why the State did not provide this information,

especially given the fact that Defendant specifically requested any such information and given

2
the fact that the conduct during the arrest was a crucial part of the defense’s case. The State

willfully withheld impeaching evidence that caused significant prejudice to Defendant and

Defendant meets all of the requirements under Brady and Giglio to warrant a new trial.

Despite a request to the Attorney General’s office earlier this month, undersigned counsel

has still not been provided any information regarding discipline of officers involved in the arrest

of Defendant. Defendant requests that the State provide any such information and that he be

provided a new trial for the intentional withholding of this evidence.

A motion for new trial under Rule 33, based on newly discovered evidence must be filed

within 2 years of entry of the judgment against the Defendant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order the State

to turn over any and all evidence of discipline of any officer involved in the arrest of Defendant,

grant him a new trial regarding the same and issue any further relief as it deems just and proper.

Date: February 12, 2021 ________________________

Verne E. Paradie, Jr.
Bar No. 8929
217 Main Street, Suite 400
Lewiston, Me 04240
207-333-3583