U.S. v. Lachman, 1st Cir. Mar. 26, 2008
06-1058, 06-1060, 06-1061 U.S. v. Lachman
Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Selya, Senior Circuit Judge, and Howard, Circuit Judge.
BOUDIN, Chief Judge. This case, arising from defendants’ convictions on charges of violating and conspiring to violate the Export Administration Act of 1979 (”EAA”) and its implementing regulations, is before us for the third time. The facts and earlier procedural history are recounted in United States v. Lachman, 387 F.3d 42, 46-49 (1st Cir. 2004) (”Lachman II”); United States v. Lachman, 48 F.3d 586, 588 (1st Cir. 1995) (”Lachman I”); and United States v. Lachman, 278 F. Supp. 2d 68, 73-74 (D. Mass. 2003). … Now before us are Lachman’s claims that the jury’s verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence of his scienter and that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the alleged Rule 44(c) violation. In addition, Lachman and the corporate defendants appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial based on their proffer of newly discovered evidence, including the supposed Brady evidence. We discuss the sufficiency claim first, then the new evidence and Brady issues and finally the claim based on Rule 44(c). … Affirmed. U.S. v. Lachman.
