Search results
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. Tibbs v.
evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict); United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001) (“The district court must strike a balance between weighing the evidence and credibility of witnesses and not ‘wholly usurp[ing]’ the role of the jury.” (quoting United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105, 120 (2d Cir. 2000))). 1621
- 348KB
- 41
Oct 8, 2020 · Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409, 1413 (2d Cir. 1992). But in a ruling yesterday, a panel of the Second Circuit held “a district court may not grant a Rule 33 motion based on the weight of the evidence alone unless the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.”. United States v. Archer, ___ F.3d ___, 2020 WL 5924196, at *4 (2d Cir. Oct. 7 ...
Oct 7, 2020 · Id. at 330. In short, Ferguson was an “exceptional” case warranting a new trial. Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134–35. While we did not explicitly acknowledge that the evidence preponderated heavily against the verdict, the standard we laid out in Ferguson is not in tension with the “preponderates heavily” standard that we explicitly adopt today.
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. Archer ” I, 977 F.3d at 187–88 (internal quotation marks omitted). To illustrate when it would be appropriate to grant a
Oct 12, 2021 · freely reweigh the evidence on Rule 33 review but may only disturb the verdict and actually order a new trial if the evidence “preponderates heavily” against guilt. BIO.8 (collecting cases); see also Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.S. 361, 363 (1891) (new trial appropriate where verdict is “manifestly against the weight of ev-idence”).
People also ask
What is the preponderates heavily standard?
Can a fact-finder believe uncontradicted evidence?
Should witnesses' credibility be considered in a “weight of the evidence” review?
Can a defendant know the inadequacies of trial counsel's performance?
Can a new trial be granted if evidence is perjured?
Can a jury infer Archer's knowledge of a conspiracy based on conscious avoidance?
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.” * See Crittenden, 827 F. App’x at 449 (citing . United States v. Herrera, 559 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 2009)).
