US v. Merlino

Filing 920100115

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'Before the district court, Merlino made this assertion as\
part of his broader claim that his counsel was operating under a\
conflict of interest when he took on the representation of a\
retired FBI agent during Merlino\'s trial. Merlino does not\
challenge on appeal the district court\'s conclusion that there was\
no conflict of interest, and we limit our discussion accordingly.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'The length of the resulting sentence that attached to the\
conviction is not relevant to the determination of whether there\
was sufficient evidence to support the conviction itself. Cf.\
Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 579 (1994) (noting that the\
consequences of a guilty verdict are irrelevant to the fact\
finder\'s task of determining whether, based on its fact-findings,\
the defendant is guilty of the crime charged). Although the\
standard for a judgment of acquittal does not change based on the\
length of imprisonment the defendant faces if convicted, it appears\
that the district court\'s assessment of Romano\'s testimony was, to\
some extent, clouded by that very fact. To the extent the district\
court considered the mandatory minimum sentence in granting the\
judgment of acquittal, it did so in error. \
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'Although the Government relies on United States v. Rothrock,\
806 F.2d 318 (1st Cir. 1986), in support of its argument that the\
district court erred in granting the new trial motion, we have\
reservations about reliance on that decision. In Rothrock, we\
stated that "[w]here an order for a new trial is predicated on the\
district court\'s evaluation of the weight of the evidence rather\
than its concern about the effect of prejudicial acts that may have\
resulted in an unfair trial, we will exercise a more stringent\
standard of review, requiring the court to refrain from interfering\
unless it is quite clear that the jury has reached a seriously\
erroneous result." Id. at 321 (internal quotation marks omitted). \
We have serious reservations about whether Rothrock\'s suggestion\
that we apply a "more stringent standard" of appellate review where\
an order for new trial is based on the district court\'s evaluation\
of the evidence is a correct statement of the law. Rothrock\'s\
statement that we apply a "more stringent standard" of review\
improperly conflates the standard the district court applies in\
considering a motion for new trial with the standard the appellate\
court applies in reviewing the district court\'s decision. We have\
uniformly reviewed decisions to grant or deny a motion for new\
trial under an abuse of discretion standard. When the district\
court considers a motion for new trial, however, it should\
interfere with the jury verdict only if the jury has reached a\
seriously erroneous result. \
'

var WPFootnote7 = 'It at first seems odd, given the district court\'s initial\
denial of Merlino\'s new trial motion, that the court then granted\
Merlino\'s conditional new trial motion as to count three several\
months later. However, we are of the view that having granted\
Merlino\'s motion for judgment of acquittal as to count three, the\
district court erroneously took the view that Merlino\'s initial\
motion for new trial on this count was moot. The court could not\
have been denying Merlino\'s initial new trial motion as to count\
three on the merits, as such a denial would have been so clearly\
inconsistent with the court\'s grant of the motion for judgment of\
acquittal on this count.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "