Zaglin Withdraws Motion For New Trial

Key Takeaways

• Zaglin withdrew his second motion for a new trial in Jan 2026
• Motion was based on alleged false testimony by co‑defendant Marchena
• DOJ argued affidavit was unreliable and evidence immaterial
• Judge Becerra granted writ to compel inmate witness
• Withdrawal cancels hearing and nullifies habeas corpus writ

Pulse Analysis

The Zaglin case remains a landmark FCPA enforcement action, highlighting how U.S. authorities pursue corruption schemes that extend into Central America. Zaglin’s original conviction rested on a trove of emails, financial records, and testimony linking him to bribes paid to Honduran police officials for uniform contracts. The eight‑year sentence reflects the Justice Department’s aggressive posture toward foreign‑bribery offenses, especially when they involve public‑sector procurement. By securing a guilty verdict, prosecutors demonstrated the power of coordinated investigations that combine forensic accounting with witness cooperation.

Zaglin’s attempt to secure a new trial hinged on an affidavit from fellow inmate Danny Rodriguez, who claimed Marchena confessed to planning false testimony. The DOJ’s rebuttal focused on Rodriguez’s criminal history and the lack of corroborating evidence, arguing that even if true, the statements would not alter the trial’s outcome given the breadth of proof. Legal standards for granting a new trial require new, material evidence likely to produce a different verdict; the court’s willingness to grant a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum initially suggested openness to re‑examining witness credibility. However, Zaglin’s subsequent consent motion to withdraw the request indicates a strategic retreat, perhaps to avoid further procedural setbacks or adverse rulings.

The episode offers broader lessons for corporations and compliance teams. First, reliance on cooperative witnesses can be a double‑edged sword; their credibility is scrutinized intensely, especially when they have incentives to mitigate their own sentences. Second, defendants must assess the strength of any purported new evidence against the high bar for overturning convictions. Finally, the DOJ’s decisive response reinforces the message that FCPA convictions, once supported by robust documentary and testimonial evidence, are unlikely to be undone by peripheral claims. Stakeholders should therefore prioritize proactive compliance and thorough internal investigations to mitigate the risk of costly enforcement actions.