4th Cir.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC LEE SMITH

April 14, 2026 ·25-6013 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Eric Lee Smith's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's ruling. The court held that Smith failed to meet the stringent five-part standard required to prove newly discovered evidence would likely result in acquittal.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 2:02

Eric Lee Smith, proceeding pro se, appealed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's order denying his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Smith had filed an informal brief raising his arguments, but the government did not file a response brief. Smith subsequently moved for a default judgment, arguing that the government's failure to respond should result in a ruling in his favor. The district court had previously denied the motion for a new trial, and the Fourth Circuit was tasked with reviewing that denial for an abuse of discretion.

The panel reviewed the district court's denial of the Rule 33 motion for an abuse of discretion. The court reiterated the controlling five-part standard established in United States v. Ali: to grant a new trial, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is newly discovered; (2) the defendant exercised due diligence in discovering it; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence would probably result in acquittal at a new trial. The appellate court limited its review to the issues raised in Smith's informal brief, noting that under Fourth Circuit rules, the informal brief is the primary vehicle for preserving issues. The court discerned no abuse of discretion in the district court's application of this standard to Smith's arguments. Additionally, the court addressed Smith's request for a default judgment, clarifying that Local Rule 34(b) does not require the government to file a response brief to an informal appellant's brief, thereby rendering the motion for default judgment without merit.

The conviction stands as the appellate court found no error in the district court's handling of the new trial motion. The decision reinforces the high burden placed on defendants seeking new trials based on newly discovered evidence and clarifies procedural expectations for pro se litigants regarding informal briefs and default judgments in the Fourth Circuit. No remand instructions were issued.

Play