- 269 -
The very purpose of a trial is to test the truthfulness
of testimony and other evidence proffered by the
parties. Examining the possibility that testimony is
perjurious is one of the principal functions of cross-
examination. * * * Rule 60(b) should not reward the
lazy litigant who did not adequately investigate his or
her case, or who did not vigorously cross-examine a
witness. [Fn. refs. omitted.]
12 Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, sec. 60.43[1][c], at 60-131
to 60-132 (3d ed. 1998). In this regard, courts have denied
relief under rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure where the moving party had a full and fair opportunity
to uncover the alleged fraud or perjury at trial. See Bunch v.
United States, supra at 1283.
We have already described the Government misconduct in these
cases supra pp. 218-225. Arguably, Messrs. McWade's and Sims'
failure to disclose the Thompson and Cravens settlements and the
Alexander understanding to the Court constitute fraud,
misrepresentation, or misconduct within the meaning of rule
60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, as
discussed above, fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct alone is
not sufficient to require or justify relief under rule 60(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the contrary, relief
under rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
warranted only where the fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct
has prevented the adversely affected party from fully and fairly
presenting his or her case at trial. In re M/V Peacock, supra.
We are convinced that the Government misconduct did not
prevent the remaining test case petitioners from fully and fairly
Page: Previous 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011