Search results
Oct 7, 2020 · The preponderates heavily standard requires that the district court determine whether all the evidence at trial, taken as a whole, preponderated heavily against the verdict; it does not, however, permit the district court to elect its own theory of the case and view the evidence through that lens.
Apr 10, 2012 · If the court concludes that, despite the abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it may set aside the verdict, grant a new trial, and submit the issues for determination by another jury.
Sep 1, 2015 · If the court determines (despite the abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict) that the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it may set aside the verdict, grant a new trial and submit the issues for determination by a new jury.
Oct 8, 2020 · When the entirety of the trial evidence “preponderates heavily against” guilt even after one resolves any conflicts in favor of conviction, a rational jury could not have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rule 33(b)(1) now provides that a new trial motion grounded on newly discovered evidence may be filed within three years of the verdict, whereas Rule 33(b)(2) requires that a motion grounded on any other reason be filed within fourteen days.
- 348KB
- 41
Jun 7, 2023 · In Archer I, we clarified that a district court may not grant a motion for a new trial "based on the weight of the evidence alone unless the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict to such an extent that it would be manifest injustice to let the verdict stand."
People also ask
What is the preponderates heavily standard?
Can a fact-finder believe uncontradicted evidence?
Should a new trial be granted based on newly discovered evidence?
What is “weight of the evidence” in civil litigation?
Can a new trial be granted if evidence is perjured?
Why did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court remand the case for a new trial?
to clarify whether it had granted a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction or that, despite the sufficiency of the evidence, it “preponderated heavily against the guilty verdict.”
