Opinion
Criminal Case No. 13-cr-00392-CMA
11-24-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. GEORGE THOMAS BROKAW, 2. JOHN J. PAWELSKI, and 3. MIMI M. VIGIL, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to FRCrimP 33 [sic] (Doc. # 369). Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a court to grant a new trial "if the interest of justice so requires," Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), such motions are generally not favored and should be granted only with great caution, United States v. Herrerra, 481 F.3d 1266, 1269-70 (10th Cir. 2007). Additionally, the decision whether to grant a new trial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. Kelley, 929 F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir. 1991).
Defendants' Motion does not raise specific claims of error with respect to the trial. Rather, it makes the same tax-protester style arguments regarding the power of the government to bring this case and the power of the Court to hear it. The Court has repeatedly rejected these arguments as patently frivolous and legally meritless. See (Doc. # 217 at 1-2) (rejecting 11 motions making arguments of this sort); see also Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008) (categorizing similar types of tax-protester arguments—including several that are similar to those raised by Defendants—and noting that such arguments "have long been held to be lacking in legal merit and frivolous").
In doing so, the Court has done its utmost to liberally construe the Defendants' arguments, as they are appearing pro se. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for a New Trial (Doc. # 369) is DENIED.
DATED: November 24, 2014
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge