Filed: Apr. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Judgment notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial ( Doc. #160 ) filed on March 26, 2015. The United States filed a response in opposition on April 17, 2015. ( Doc. #166 ). This matter is ripe for review. A district court must review a Rule 29 motion in the light most favorable to the government when determining whether a reasonable jury could have found the def
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Judgment notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial ( Doc. #160 ) filed on March 26, 2015. The United States filed a response in opposition on April 17, 2015. ( Doc. #166 ). This matter is ripe for review. A district court must review a Rule 29 motion in the light most favorable to the government when determining whether a reasonable jury could have found the defe..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Judgment notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial (Doc. #160) filed on March 26, 2015. The United States filed a response in opposition on April 17, 2015. (Doc. #166). This matter is ripe for review.
A district court must review a Rule 29 motion in the light most favorable to the government when determining whether a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Fed. R. Crim. P. 29; United States v. Miranda, 425 F.3d 953, 959 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Sellers, 871 F.2d 1019, 1021 (11th Cir. 1989)). In doing so, a district court must accept all reasonable inferences and credibility determinations made by the jury. Id. Upon consideration, the Court finds the government met its burden as to all elements of each count and that a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, for the reasons stated on the record in open court, the motion is due to be denied.
In addition, in review of a Rule 33 motion, a district court weighs the evidence and considers the creditability of the witness to decide whether a new trial should be granted. Fed. R. Crim. P. 33; United States v. Belitsky, No. 2:09-cr-14-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 576843, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2011). Nonetheless, "[t]he evidence must preponderate heavily against the verdict, such that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand." Butcher v. United States, 368 F.3d 1290, 1297 (11th Cir. 2004). Upon consideration, the Court finds the jury's verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. (See Doc. #130). Having heard the evidence and making independent credibility determinations, the Court agrees with the verdict of guilt as to each count. There is no legal issue which precludes conviction on each count. Therefore, for the reasons stated on the record in open court, the motion is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Motion for Judgment notwithstanding the Verdict or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial (Doc. #160) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
