United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
ORDER
Max O.
Cogburn, Jr. United States District Judge
THIS
MATTER is before the Court on defendant's Motion
for Judgment of Acquittal (#350) and Motion for a New Trial
(#351).
Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c)(2) provides that, when a
jury returns a guilty verdict, “the court may set aside
the verdict and enter an acquittal.” In doing so, the
defendant who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
“bears a heavy burden.” United States v.
Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997)
(citations and quotations omitted). Such reversal is
“reserved for the rare case ‘where the
prosecution's failure is clear.'” Id.
(quoting Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17
(1978)). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the
court “is to construe the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government, assuming its credibility, and
drawing all favorable inferences from it, and will sustain
the jury's verdict if any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond
a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 571 (4th Cir.
2011). “If there is substantial evidence to support the
verdict, after viewing all of the evidence and the inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government,
” the Rule 29 motion must be denied. United States
v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994)
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1135 (1985).
“Substantial evidence” is defined as
“evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept
as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a
defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc); United States v.
Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). In
evaluating the evidence, the Court “cannot make [its]
own credibility determinations but must assume that the jury
resolved all contradictions in testimony in favor of the
Government.” United States v. United Med. &
Surgical Supply Corp., 989 F.2d 1390, 1402
(4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Wilson,
118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that
credibility determinations are reserved for the jury, and if
different interpretations exist, the jury decides which to
believe). Finally, evidence is reviewed “in its
totality, not in isolation, and the government need not
negate every possible theory of innocence.” United
States v. Cote, 544 F.3d 88, 98 (2d Cir. 2008). Here,
the Court finds that, after reviewing the evidence and
inferences in the light most favorable to the government, the
evidence was substantial and sufficient for a rational finder
of fact to find the elements of the crimes of conviction
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pursuant
to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, a court may also “vacate any
judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so
requires.” Id. When ruling on a motion for a
new trial, the district court is not constrained to view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and
the court may evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1485 (4th
Cir.1985). However, the district court must show deference to
the jury's verdict and should grant a new trial only
“[w]hen the evidence weighs so heavily against the
verdict that it would be unjust to enter judgment.”
Id. The Fourth Circuit has held that “a trial
court should exercise its discretion to award a new trial
sparingly and a jury verdict is not to be overturned except
in the rare circumstance when the evidence weighs heavily
against it.” United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d
209, 216-17 (4th Cir. 2006). The Court finds that this case
does not present one of the rare circumstances when the
evidence weighs so heavily against the jury verdict as to
warrant a new trial. United States v. Smith, 451
F.3d 209, 216-17 (4th Cir. 2006). Indeed, even when the Court
considers de novo the credibility of the witnesses
and does not view the evidence in a light most favorable to
the government, the evidence presented still fully
supports the reasoned verdict of the jury.
ORDER
IT
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that on defendant's
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (#350) and Motion for a New
Trial ...