160 Page 1 Of 6 Tuesday, 14 August, 2018 04:46:25 PM Cler US. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5% .. FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS git/6 I . URBANA DIVISION 2 a. {uni ?g?is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15 CR 20057 SARAH NIXON Defendant. PRO SE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND RECUSAL I, Sarah M. Nixon, without the assistance of an attorney, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, respectfully move the Court for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and reSpect?Jlly request that the instant motion be considered by a different judge than the judge who presided over my trial. In support of my motion, I state as follows: BACKGROUND 1. I am the defendant in this case. 2. On Gctober 20, 2015, the defendant was charged with international parental kidnapping. 3. The Court appointed the defendant an attorney. 4. The defendant?s case went to trial. The trial took place between December 13?? and 2016. 160 Page 2 of 5. On December 20, 2016, the jury convicted the defendant of international parental kidnapping, and the district court sentenced the defendant on May 19, 2017, and docketed the final judgment on May 22, 2017. 6. In July 2017, the court appointed the defendant an attorney to represent her on appeal. 7. The defendant appealed to the Circuit. 8. The defendant?s appeal proceedings are pending and ongoing. 9. On May 30, 2018, the United States Attorney?s of?ce mailed a letter to defendant?s appellate attorney, disclosing a series of emails between United States district Judge Colin Bruce and an employee of the United States Attorney?s of?ce. (A true and complete copy of the letter and enclosures from the Department of Justice United States Attorney?s of?ce to defendant?s attorney are appended hereto as Defendant?s Exhibit 10. Judge Colin Bruce was the presiding judge at the defendant?s trial. 11. The aforesaid employee of the United States Attorney?s office was a co?worker of the United States attorneys who were prosecuting the defendant.1 12. The email exchanges occurred between December l6, 2016 and December 18, 2016, during the defendant?s trial. 13. In the emails, Judge Bruce sought to engage the United States Attorney?s of?ce employee in a discussion about defendant?s trial. 14. In the email exchanges, Judge Bruce speci?cally discussed the viability of the defendant?s case. 1 The United States attorneys who were prosecuting the defendant were Elly Peirson and Lauren Kuipersmith. 15. i6. 17. 18. l9. 20, 21. 22. 24. 160 Page 3 of 6 Judge Bruce?s emails criticized the trial strategy pursued by the United States attorneys, and put forward strategy for prosecuting the case. The defendant was not aware, at the time, of the email exchanges. On June 5, 2018, the defendant?s appellate attorney noti?ed the defendant of the disclosure, by the Depattment of Justice, of the email communications. On June 19, 2018, the defendant?s appellate attorney ?led with the district court a Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal with the email communications. On June 26, 2018, the United States Attorney filed its response to the defendant?s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, stating that ?it understands the defendant?s desire to make the court of appeals aware of the emails,? and it did not Oppose the defendant?s motion. On June 27, 2018, the district court entered a sealed order, denying the defendant?s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. On July 3, 2018, the defendant?s appellate attorney filed with the Circuit a Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal with these communications. On July 3, 2018, the Circuit denied the defendant?s Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal with the district court?s email communications. . In the aforesaid order ot?i?une 27, 2018, the district court stated that the defendant?s motion was ?premature on direct appeal and should be made in a collateral proceeding.? Emphasis added. In the aforesaid order, the district court stated that it believes that, ?in order for an accurate record to be created (. . .) any further development of this record should occur in a coZZateraZ proceeding.? Emphasis added. 160 Page 4 of 6 25. The defendant?s appellate attorney has alerted the defendant of the grounds in this case for a Rule 33 Motion, and has apprised her ofthe applicable Rule language. 26. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, to be granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show the following four elements: that the evidence: (1) came to [her] knowledge only alter trial; (2) could not have been discovered sooner through the exercise of due diligence; (3) is material, and not merely impeaching or cumulative; and (4) would probably lead to an acquittal in the event of a new trial.? United States v. Theodosopoulos, 48 F.3d 1438, 1448 (7th Cir. 1995). 27. The defendant?s case meets the required elements: (1) The emails came to the defendant?s knowledge only after trial; (2) The emails could not have been discovered sooner through the exercise of due diligence; (3) The evidence is not merely impeaching, and it is not cumulative. It is material. (4) The evidence would probably lead to an acquittal in the event ofa new trial. 28. The email exchanges took place over a weekend while the defendant was on the witness stand, in mid?testimony. 29. The defendant only recently learned of the discovery of these emails, and is timely filing her motion for a new trial. 30. Judge Bruce exercised prodigious discretion in ruling on defendant?s pre?trial motions and during defendant?s trial. The principal basis of defendant?s argument on appeal is the multiplicity of errors made in discretionary judicial decisions ?just one example being 160 Page 5 of 6 the court?s discretionary decision to exclude the witness testimony of numerous child abuse experts whose investigations had found that the defendant?s minor child had been sexually assaulted and physically assaulted by her father. As a result, the jury never learned of the existence of expert ?ndings and conclusions. 31. In the emails, Judge Bruce expressed undisguised prejudice and contempt for defendant?s truthful testimony, and offered his opinion of it as worthless (?gatbage?). 32. In the emails, Judge Bruce opined on the and weaknesses of the defendant?s ease, the government?s case, and speculated on the shifting odds and likelihood of a conviction. 33, Judge Bruce?s entails constitute grounds, under Rule 33, fut a new trial. 34. The defendant anticipates a response'from the government to the instant motion, and respect?illy requests that counsel be appointed to ?le a reply brief on her behalf. WHEREFORE, Sarah Nixon respectfully requests that the instant Motion he considered by a different judge than Colin Bruce, and requests that the Honorable Court issue an order granting her a new trial, and granting her the appointment of counsel to represent her in this cause. Respeet?illy Submitted, Sarah Nixon, Pro Sea 607 West Oregon Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 160 Page 6 0f 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF ANLERICA PIaintiff, SARAH NIXON Defendant. URBANA Case No. 15 CR 20057 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 14, 2018, I served the foregoing by placing it in the US. Mail with proper postage af?xed to: WILLIAM A. GLASER Attorney, Appellate Section Criminal Division, Suite 1264 US. Department of Justice 950 Penneyivania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 532?4495 PATRICK D. HANSEN First Assistant US. Attorney 318 South 6&1 Street Spring?eld, IL 62701-1806 (217)492?4450 Respectfully Submitted, Sarah Nixon, Pro Se 607 West Oregon Street Urbana, Illinois, 6180} 160-1 Page 1 of 5 Tuesday, 14 August, 2018 04:46:26 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD Exhibit 160-1 Page 2 of 5 US. Department of Justice United Skates Attorney Central Dz?Sm?ct QfI?inorI-S Headquarters Q?lce John E. 315? 3021!}: 6d: TEL: (217} 4 92-445!) United .S?mzcs Altamey Spring/fem 62 701 ?1806 ELY. 7] 492-4512 May 30, 2018 Sarah O?Rourke Shrup, Esq. Bluhm Legal Clinic Pritzker Schooi of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 6061 1~3069 .Rc: United States v. Sarah. Nixon 20057 Ms. Shrup: Please be advised that the we very recently became aware of an e?mail exchange between an employee of the US. Attorney?s Of?ce in the Centrai District of ?linois and the Court which occurred during the trial of Unitecl States V. Sarah Nixon. We have no information suggesting that this exchange was shared or made known to the @121 team. Nevextnciess, in the exercise of due caution, we are notifying you ofthe exchange, and enciosing the communication to you at this time. 7 Patrick D. Hansen First Assistant U.S. Attorney Co: The Honorable Colin S. Bruce, United States District Judge 160?1 Page 3 Of 5 From: CoiiodBruce@lftd.uscourts.g0v Tn: Ho 5 USAIL Subject: RE: Jim"s Farewelf Date: Sunday, December 18, 2016 12:45:15 PM I Work hard not to try any of the cases. 1 actually have a Sign on the bench from Judge Baker that says NOT TRY . When I?m not making internal jokes or when I?m not completely bored, lots of times I am cringingu I really cringed when the niexperienced attorney starting crossing the defendant in this During this Ikeep wanting to say, ?Seriously? That is your plan? Repeat the testimony of the defendant as though it was fact and then say, ?Right?? And if you were in the courtroom, yes, I would be giving you looks that would make you crack-up. From: Hoops, Lisa (USAILC) [mailtm?oppg Lisa (USAJLC) Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 7:55 PM To: "Coltn?Bruce?llcouscourtegov? Subject: RE: Jim?s FareWGll DITTO my friend%! She is, I?m happy for hex. OHS. How do you sit through that? I oan just see you looking iike you?re bored to death, but on the inside you?re cracking yourself up with jokes? I would NOT be able to make o0ntact with you. hahahahaha From: . {Ute 'icdoscour?ts. Iov Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 5:10 PM To: Hoops, Lisa sado. ov> Subject: RE: Jim?s Farewell Damn it! I could use a little Lisa Hopps in the courtroom just to see you. Staci is doing a good job, so you trained her well. So for in this trial, in the over one hour erossuexammetlon, the attorney has done a WONDERFUL job of repeating the bullshit the defendant said an if the defendant's story was all fact. 160?]. Page 4 Of 5 HOW about the BASIC cross? examination Skill of saying ?and then the ALLEGED ACCORDING 10 YOUR his trial went from a slan1~dru?< for the prosecution to a bout a for the defendant, and there 1's more cross~examination to 'go From: Hopes, Lisa (USAILC) [ma?tm?oppsr Lisa usdoigow] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 4:00 PM To: "Cglin ?201113 Subject: RE: Jim's Farewefl Are you kidding me?1?! Wow. NeverCD. Staci is the paralegal in training over there so I'm o~uwt. From: [meilto:Coiln Bruce?lilcdesmurrs erw] Sent: Saturday, December 17?, 2016 2:11 PM To: Hopes, Usa (USAILC) was us Subject: RE: Jim's Fareweil Trial. Elly, Where evidently the Elly and Co. decided they did not want to win by letting an en?reiy inexperieaced attorney cross examine THE DEFENDANT. (Here are some words she evidenrly does not know: "aileged? 311 ppesedly story?) If If your Are you ever going to come over here and do another trial? From: Hopps, Lisa (USAILC) [mailtozHopps, Lisa (USAELC) j Sent: Friday, December 16 2016 4: 26 PM To: "?Colin Bruce@iicd. uscuurts gov'" 01in uscourts. gov v> Subject. 31m 3 Farewen And just WERE YOU Lisa Hopp?s 160-1 Page 5 01?5 Paralegal Speciakist United States Attorneys Office 318 South Sixth Street Springfield, IL 62701 D?rect Line: 217-492-444? 160?1 Page 1 of 5 Tuesday, 14 August, 2018 04:46:26 PM Clerk, US. District Court, Exhibit 160-1 Page 2 Of 5 Department: of Justice United States- Attorney Central Bionic: 0 I {limos Headqumters Q?ice John E. C'izildress 318 Smith Street" 7'1? L: {2 .7 7,7 #92445!) United States Attorney Spring?eld. 62 70] 1306 (21' .7) May 30, 20 8 Sarah O?Rourke Shrug}, Esq. Bluhm Legal Clinic No?hwestem Pritzker Schoot of Law 375 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611?3069 Re: United States v. Sarah. Nixon 20057 Ms. Shrup: Please be advised that the we very recently became aware of an e?mail exchange between an employee of the US. Attorney?s Of?ce to the Central 'Dist?et of ?lz?nois and the Court which occurred during the trial of United States v. Sarah Nixon. We have no infomtation suggesting that this exchange was shared or made known to the trial team. Nevertheless, in the exercise of due caution, we are notifying you of the exchange, and enclosing the com mtmication to you at this time. Patrick D. Hansen First Assistant US. Attomey Co: The Honoz'able Colin S. Bruce, United States District Ju?lge 150-1 Page 3 Of 5 From: Coiln?ruce?aifcd.uscourtS.gov To: {ingest Ligg Subject: RE: Jim"s Farewe? Date: Sunday, December 18, 2016 12:45:15 PM I work hard not to try any of the cases. I actually have a sign on the bench from Judge Baker that says; NOT TRY THE: CA8 When I?m not making internal jokes or when I?m not completely bored, lots of times I am ?Stinging. I really cringed when the ?rexperlenced attorney starting crossing the defendant in this During this cross~e>ceminetlon, wanting to say, ?Seriously? That is your plan? Repeat the testimony of the defendant as though it was fact and then say, Right?? And if you were in the courtroom, yes, I would be giving yoo looks that wotdd make you crack-up. From: Hoops, Lisa (USAILC) [maiito:Hopps, Lisa (USAILC) Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 7:55 PM To: Subject: RE: Jim?s Farewell DITTO my friendii She is, I?m happy for hex. 0M6. How do you sit through that? I can just see you looking like you?re bored to death, but on the inside you?re cracking yourself up with jokes! 1 would NOT be able to make contact with you. hahahahaha From: Colin Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 5:10 PM To: Hoops, Lisa {Liege all sacloj. ov> Subject: RE: .iim?s Farewell Demo it! I could use a little Lise Hopps in the courtroom just to see you. Staci is doing a good job, so you trained her well. So far in this trial, in the over one hour moss-examination, the attorney has done a WONDERFUL job of repeating the bullshit the defendant said as if the defendant?s story was all fact. 160?1 Page 4 of 5 How about ?ie BASIC crossrexaminaiion skill of saying ?and ?ien the ALLEGED event took place? or ?and then, this happened? or so ACCORDING TO YOUR STD RM . . This trial from a Siam?dunk for the prosecution to about a 60?40 for the defendant, and there is more cross~exami11ation to go From: Hoops, Lisa (USAILC) [mailto:Hopps, Lisa (USAILC)