Moreover, there is nothing "unusual" about the circumstances and there is no other discernible basis for the late filing. See State v. Rankin, 666 A.2d 123, 127 (Me. 1995) (granting a late motion for a new trial due to the "unusual" nature of the case). Simply put, Rosario's Rule 33 motion was untimely.
The court may even grant a defendant a new trial if “required in the interest of justice.” U.C.D.R.P.—Bangor 33; see State v. Rankin, 666 A.2d 123, 126–27 (Me.1995) (stating that the State's failure to disclose evidence may form an adequate basis for the grant of a new trial pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 33).