Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. FURMAN, 14-323(DSD/LIB). (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Minnesota Number: infdco20151026a34 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID S. DOTY , District Judge . This matter is before the court upon the motion for judgment of acquittal by defendant Rex Lee Furman. Furman made the motion at trial after the close of all evidence. The court reserved decision on the motion until after the jury returned its verdict. The jury found Furman guilty of thirteen counts of production of child pornography, two counts of distribution of child pornography, one count of receipt of child pornography, one count of possession of
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon the motion for judgment of acquittal by defendant Rex Lee Furman. Furman made the motion at trial after the close of all evidence. The court reserved decision on the motion until after the jury returned its verdict. The jury found Furman guilty of thirteen counts of production of child pornography, two counts of distribution of child pornography, one count of receipt of child pornography, one count of possession of child pornography, and one count of commission of a felony offense involving a minor at a time when he was required to register as a sex offender. The court now addresses the motion.

Upon a defendant's motion, the court "must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). When considering a motion for judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the evidence "in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences." United States v. Cacioppo, 460 F.3d 1012, 1021 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court will grant the motion "only if there is no interpretation of the evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

In the present case, the government offered evidence that was more than sufficient to sustain a conviction. Therefore, denial is warranted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for judgment of acquittal is denied.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer