U.S. v. Pugh, CR417-51. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20180913b54
Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Nathaniel Pugh's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial. (Doc. 107.) In this motion, Defendant states that he should be acquitted on all charges because the Government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Id. ) Defendant, however, has failed to provide any argument to support his contention. As a result, Defendant's motion is DENIED. When considering a motion for acquittal und
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Nathaniel Pugh's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial. (Doc. 107.) In this motion, Defendant states that he should be acquitted on all charges because the Government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Id. ) Defendant, however, has failed to provide any argument to support his contention. As a result, Defendant's motion is DENIED. When considering a motion for acquittal unde..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR., District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Nathaniel Pugh's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial. (Doc. 107.) In this motion, Defendant states that he should be acquitted on all charges because the Government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id.) Defendant, however, has failed to provide any argument to support his contention. As a result, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
When considering a motion for acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. The issue before the Court is "whether a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Sellers, 871 F.2d 1019, 1021 (11th Cir. 1989). Essentially, the Court must ensure that the verdict in this case is not based wholly on "speculation and conjecture." United States v. Kelly, 888 F.2d 732, 741 (11th Cir. 1989).
In his motion, Defendant has provided conclusory statements that the verdict in this case is "contrary to the evidence" and "strongly against the weight of the evidence." (Doc. 107.) Defendant, however, has not provided a single argument to support his position. After careful review of the record, Defendant's motion is DENIED. The Government provided sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction in this case.1
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In addition, the Court may grant a Defendant's motion for new trial "if the interest of justice so requires." Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Defendant, however, again fails to put forth any argument as to why he should be entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, Defendant's request is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
