IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

 :

vs. :

 :

LOUIS STILLIS, a/k/a “Lou Bop,” : NO: 04-680-03

TYRONE TRADER, a/k/a “Saleem” : -06

DuBOIS, J. JULY 16, 2007

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court are the post-trial motions of defendants Louis Stillis and

Tyrone Trader for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 or, in

the alternative, for new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. For the reasons

that follow, with respect to the jury trial which resulted in guilty verdicts on January 18, 2007,

those motions are denied. The Court reserves ruling on that part of defendant Stillis’ motion that

addresses the January 19, 2007 non-jury trial and verdict of guilty on Count Fifty-Three of the

Superseding Indictment. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts and Procedural History

On April 13, 2005, a Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a FiftyThree Count Superseding Indictment against Stillis, Trader, and seven other co-defendants. In

Count One, the Superseding Indictment charges that the defendants participated in a conspiracy

to distribute more than five (5) kilograms of cocaine in Philadelphia and Delaware Counties from

in or about July 2003 through in or about October 2004, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(A). Each defendant was also charged in separate counts with distribution of cocaine

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 17
2

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and distribution of cocaine within 1,000 feet

of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 860(a). 

Additionally, Count Fifty-Three of the Superseding Indictment charges that on or about

April 22, 2004, defendant Stillis, having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment

for a term exceeding one year, knowingly possessed, in and affecting interstate commerce, a

firearm, that is a loaded Lorcin 9mm semiautomatic pistol, serial number 133831, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

The Superseding Indictment described the drug conspiracy as a pyramid structure with

defendant Tyrone Smith at the top. Defendant Tyrone Smith was alleged to be “a supplier of

large quantities of cocaine, ranging from approximately 250 grams to approximately one

kilogram, which he distributed to defendant William Green . . . and others for redistribution in

Delaware County, Pennsylvania.” Superseding Indict. at 3. At the next level, the Superseding

Indictment charges that defendant Green distributed the cocaine he received from defendant

Smith to defendant Stillis and others for further distribution. At the bottom, the Government

avers that defendant Stillis “distributed cocaine to numerous buyers in Delaware County,

Pennsylvania, and used other members of the conspiracy,” including defendants Kenneth Wilson,

Sherron Moore, Tyrone Trader, Jamal Rideout, Richard Robinson, and Larry Davis, “to

distribute cocaine to numerous street-level buyers, and to transport cocaine and to collect money

from the sales of cocaine.” Id. at 3-4. The activities of defendant Stillis and those members of

the conspiracy who purchased cocaine from him for resale centered in the Toby Farms

neighborhood of Chester Township in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. 

On January 3, 2007, defendants Stillis and Trader, and defendants Larry Davis and Jamal

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 17
Defendants Tyrone Smith, William Green, Sherron Moore, Richard Robinson, and 1

Kenneth Wilson entered guilty pleas, and, with the exception of Tyrone Smith, testified against

the defendants at trial under cooperating plea agreements with the Government.

3

Rideout proceeded to trial before a jury. By agreement of the parties, Count Fifty-Three against

1

defendant Stillis was severed from the remainder of the charges. On January 18, 2007, all four

defendants, including Stillis and Trader, were found guilty by the jury of all charges against

them. The following day, January 19, 2007, defendant Stillis waived his right to a jury trial on

Count Fifty-Three, the government accepted his waiver, and the Court approved the waiver. The

Court then tried the severed gun charge and found defendant Stillis guilty of that charge. 

B. Defendants’ Motions

At the close of evidence, defendant Trader made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal

under Rule 29 with respect to Counts One, Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three, which was denied by

the Court on January 16, 2007. On January 25, 2007, defendant Trader filed the instant Motion

for Judgment of Acquittal and/or Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33. 

In that motion, defendant Trader “renews [his] motion for judgment of acquittal [under Rule 29]

and avers that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” Trader Mot. at 4. In

the alternative, defendant Trader argues that, under Rule 33, “this was an exceptional case in

which ‘the evidence preponderates so heavily against the verdict’ that this court’s authority to

grant a new trial should be invoked.” Id. at 5 (citing United States v. Sinclair, 438 F.2d 50, 51

n.1 (5th Cir. 1971)).

As stated above, Count One of the Superseding Indictment charged all defendants with

conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Counts Twenty-Two and TwentyThree arise from the same transaction–in Count Twenty-Two, defendants Stillis and Trader are

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 3 of 17
4

charged with distribution of 244.3 grams of cocaine, on or about July 15, 2004, and in Count

Twenty-Three, the defendants are charged with distribution of 244.3 grams of cocaine, on or

about July 15, 2004, within 1000 feet of a school.

On February 14, 2007, defendant Stillis filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the

Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33. Defendant Stillis’

Motion seeks relief under either Rule 29 or Rule 33 with respect to the jury’s verdict as to Count

One of Superseding Indictment and the Court’s conviction on Count Fifty-Three. Defendant

Stillis made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to Count One pursuant to Rule

29 at the close of evidence, which was denied by the Court on January 16, 2007. In the instant

Motion, defendant Stillis renews the prior “motion for judgment of acquittal and avers that the

evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” Stillis Mot. at 4. In the alternative,

defendant Stillis requests that the Court grant a new trial pursuant to Rule 33. 

Defendant Stillis filed two Supplements to his original motion. The first, filed on March

28, 2007, addresses solely the non jury conviction on Count Fifty-Three of the Superseding

Indictment. A hearing is scheduled on July 25, 2007 with respect to defendant Stillis’s Motion

and First Supplement insofar as those motions relate to Count Fifty-Three. Accordingly, the

Court reserves ruling on defendant Stillis’s Motion with respect to the non-jury conviction on

County Fifty-Three.

In the Second Supplement, filed on May 23, 2007, defendant Stillis further elaborates on

his position with respect to Count One, arguing that “the evidence adduced at trial was legally

insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that the conspiracy for which he was found guilty began

in July 2003 or that the conspiracy involved the distribution of more than five kilograms of

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 4 of 17
5

cocaine.” Stillis Second Suppl. Mot. at 2. On June 6, 2007, defendant Trader filed a Motion to

Join defendant Stillis’s Second Supplement, which the Court grants. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29

A motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 may only be granted where the

evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. United States v. Gonzales, 918 F.2d 1129,

1132 (3d Cir. 1990). The court must determine whether the Government has adduced

“substantial evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict.” United States v. Wexler, 838 F. 2d 88,

90 (3d Cir. 1988).

In ruling on such a motion, a court may not weigh the evidence, nor is it permitted to

make credibility determinations which are within the domain of the jury. Rather, the court must

consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, draw all reasonable

inferences in favor of the Government, and “presume that the jury has properly carried out its

function of evaluating credibility of witnesses, finding the facts, and drawing justifiable

inferences.” United States v. Wasserson, 418 F.3d 225, 237 (3d Cir. 2005). Viewing the

evidence in its entirety, the verdict must be upheld unless “no reasonable juror could accept the

evidence as sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable

doubt.” United States v. Coleman, 811 F.2d 804, 807 (3d Cir. 1987).

B. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 states in relevant part: “The court on motion of a

defendant may grant a new trial to that defendant if required in the interest of justice.” Fed. R.

Crim. P. 33. A motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is directed to the sound discretion of the

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 5 of 17
6

trial court. United States v. Rottschaefer, 178 F. App’x 145, 149 (3d Cir. 2006). “Unlike an

insufficiency of the evidence claim, when a district court evaluates a Rule 33 motion for a new

trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence it does not view the

evidence favorably to the Government, but instead exercises its own judgment in assessing the

Government’s case. United States v. David, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8876, *14-15 (3d Cir. Apr.

17, 2007) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139, 150 (3d Cir. 2002)). A district court

“can order a new trial on the ground that the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the

evidence only if it believes that there is a serious danger that a miscarriage of justice has

occurred–that is, that an innocent person has been convicted.” Id. at *15 (quoting United States

v. Davis, 397 F.3d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 2005)). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Count One–Motions of Defendants Stillis and Trader

On January 18, 2007, Defendants Stillis and Trader were convicted of conspiring to 

distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine from in or about July 2003 through in or about

October 2004–the crime charged in Count One of the Superseding Indictment. The essential

elements of this offense are (1) the defendants knowingly and intentionally entered into an

agreement with at least one other person; (2) to distribute; (3) a controlled substance in amounts

equal to or greater than the amount specifically charged, five kilograms of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). 

Over the course of the nearly three week-long trial, the government presented a

significant amount of evidence to support the conspiracy charge in Count One of the Superseding

Indictment. In its Consolidated Response, the government summarizes the evidence presented at

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 6 of 17
7

trial as follows: 

(1) Telephone conversations recorded pursuant to a Title III wiretap (through the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania);

(2) Evidence of undercover purchases of cocaine from each of the defendants

separately, and one delivery of approximately 244 grams of cocaine by both Stillis

and Trader together (Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three);

(3) Testimony of customers of each of the defendants who purchased cocaine for their

own use at the Bridgewater Bar and other locations in and around Toby Farms;

and 

(4) Testimony from cooperating defendants Kenny Wilson, William Green and

Richard Robinson.

Gov’t Resp. at 1. 

On January 16, 2007, in ruling on the oral motions of defendant Stillis and Trader for

judgment of acquittal as to Count One, the Court stated as follows:

I view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. I don’t agree that any

of the evidence in this case is so fraught with inconsistencies that it is unworthy of belief. 

And, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, I believe

there is evidence that each defendant became -- knowingly became a member of the

conspiracy and, with respect to drug quantity, I think there is evidence from which a juror

could reasonably believe that it was foreseeable to each member of the conspiracy that the

conspiracy would distribute in excess of five kilograms . . . I’m not going to comment on

the evidence at this time, but I believe it is sufficient to warrant submitting the conspiracy

count, Count 1, to the jury.

N.T. 1/16/2007, at 110-11. 

In the instant motions, defendants raise two related issues with respect to Count One: (1)

the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to the charged dates of the conspiracy and (2) the

sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to the charged drug quantities. The Court addresses each

issue in turn. 

1. Evidence as to Dates of Conspiracy

Defendants argue that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to affirmatively answer

“Jury Interrogatory 1,” which asked: “Do you unanimously agree that the Government has proven

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 7 of 17
Specifically, David Wilkins, N.T., 1/09/2007, at 67; Eric Savercool, id. at 97; Alicia 2

Czukiewski, N.T., 1/10/2007, at 116-17; and Richard Savage, N.T., id. at 188-89, 199, testified

that they were purchasing cocaine in the Toby Farms area from the defendants in the “summer of

2003.” Sandra Collins also testified that she purchased cocaine from defendant Stillis in the

summer of 2003, but later testified that she was not sure if it was 2003 or 2004. Compare N.T.,

1/11/07, at 43 with id. at 97. 

8

beyond a reasonable doubt that the quantity of cocaine defendant . . . knowingly and intentionally

conspired to distribute as part of the conspiracy, was five (5) kilograms or more?” N.T.

1/28/2007, at 93. In the Second Supplement, defendant Stillis specifically argues that the

government failed to prove that the conspiracy charged in the Superseding Indictment began in or

around July 2003. Second Suppl. Mot. at 2. On this issue, defendant Stillis argues that “the

jury’s verdict as to jury interrogatory number one” on the issue of quantity, “would be affected by

among other factors the length of time available for the purchase and resale of the cocaine.” Id.

at 7. 

In the Second Supplement, defendant Stillis describes in detail the witness testimony at

trial, which included multiple references to purchases of drugs from members of the conspiracy

in the “summer of 2003.” Additionally, defendant Stillis cites testimony from the investigating 2

police officers that also supports the finding that the conspiracy began in and around July 2003. 

First, Michael Skahill, a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper who investigated the drug

conspiracy, testified that a confidential informant started making arrangements for cocaine

purchases for Trooper Skahill and other investigators from “various persons in the Toby Farms

neighborhood,” in late June 2003. N.T., 1/05/2007, at 37. Second, Mark Jenkinson, another

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper involved in the investigation described an undercover

purchase of 1.3 grams of cocaine from defendant Trader that took place on June 27, 2003. Id. at

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 8 of 17
9

190-96. 

The Court concludes that the extensive testimony at trial provided the jury with sufficient

evidence to reasonably find that the conspiracy began in or around July 2003, and to consider that

time frame in calculating the drug quantity involved in the case. 

2. Evidence of Drug Quantity

Defendants’ second argument is that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the

jury’s finding that defendants conspired to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine. In

reviewing the trial evidence relating to drug quantity, defendants focus on the testimony of

defendant Green, arguing that, as the only testifying drug supplier from the conspiracy, “Mr.

Green’s testimony is key to the question of amount.” Stillis Second Suppl. Mot. at 8. 

Defendants calculate that defendant’s Green’s testimony as to the amount of cocaine transferred

to defendant Stillis yields “an amount in the light most favorable to the government of two and

three quarter kilograms.” Id. On this basis, defendants argue that the evidence at trial was

insufficient to support the guilty verdict on Count One, and the affirmative answer to Jury

Interrogatory 1.

In response, the government first argues that the evidence at trial demonstrates that

defendant Green could not have been defendant Stillis’s only source of cocaine for distribution,

and therefore the drug quantity involved exceeded those amounts transferred from Green to

Stillis. Specifically, the government argues that: 

It was also clear from the testimony, specifically of Donna Savage, that Stillis obtained

cocaine from at least one other source, as he ‘stashed’ a kilogram of cocaine in her

bedroom closet on one occasion. (Wilson and Green both testified that Green’s deliveries

to Stillis were never larger than 500 grams at once). Further, Stillis continued to receive

cocaine after Green was arrested in September 2004.

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 9 of 17
10

Resp. 2nd Suppl. at 4.

Second, the government points to evidence that defendants used a cutting agent (usually

Inositol) to stretch the quantity of the narcotics acquired before resale. Defendant Robinson

testified that he would cut the cocaine he purchased from defendant Stillis “one for one,” which

he explained would result in doubling the cocaine for resale. See N.T. 1/11/2007, at 214-15. 

Similarly, Pennsylvania State Trooper Scott Miscannon testified that on February 18, 2004, while

working undercover, he purchased four and a half ounces of cocaine from defendant Stillis who

told trooper Miscannon that he “could put a one on the bag, and make another four and a half

ounces out of the four and a half ounces that [he] had purchased.” N.T. 1/8/2007, at 19. On the

basis of this evidence, the government argues that “even if Stillis obtained less than five

kilograms of cocaine, he and his minions distributed twice what he obtained, once it was mixed

with the cutting agent.” Gov’t. Resp. to Second Suppl. Mot. at 12. 

In sum, the Government argues that the evidence demonstrated that defendant Stillis

obtained and re-distributed more than the two and three quarter kilograms distributed to

defendant Stillis from defendant Green. The Government further argues that, even assuming,

arguendo, that defendant Stillis obtained less than five kilograms, there was sufficient evidence

at trial to support the jury’s verdict that the defendants conspired to distribute at least five

kilograms. 

3. Analysis

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, and considering the 

arguments raised by the defendants, the Court concludes that a reasonable juror could accept the

evidence at trial as sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the defendants were guilty

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 10 of 17
11

beyond a reasonable doubt on Count One. See id. As the government has described in detail,

there was sufficient evidence on the issue of drug quantity in general, and the duration of the

conspiracy to support the jury’s verdict. The evidence at trial including, inter alia, evidence that

defendant Green provided approximately two and three quarter kilograms of cocaine to defendant

Stillis in increments no larger than 500 grams; evidence that defendant Stillis “stashed” a one

kilogram “brick” of cocaine at the home of Donna Savage; and the testimony of Trooper

Miscannon and defendant Robinson, who both described the use of cutting agents to stretch

cocaine for distribution, all supports the jury’s finding that the defendants conspired to distribute

at least five kilograms of cocaine.

It is not the role of the Court to “re-weigh” the evidence, only to examine whether the

jury’s verdict was reasonable in the light of that evidence. See United States v. Rich, 326 F.

Supp. 2d 670, 678 (E.D. Pa. 2004). Defendants have offered no grounds to rebut the

presumption “that the jury has properly carried out its function of evaluating credibility of

witnesses, finding the facts, and drawing justifiable inferences.” Coleman, 811 F. 2d at 807. 

Accordingly, the Motions for Acquittal under Rule 29 of defendants Stillis and Trader are denied

as to Count One.

Moreover, for the same reason, the Court concludes that the jury’s verdict was not against

the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, a new trial is not warranted–defendants have not shown

that there is serious danger that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. See Davis, 397 F.3d at

181. Thus, the Motions for New Trial under Rule 33 of defendants Stillis and Trader are denied

as to Count One. 

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 11 of 17
12

C. Counts Twenty-Two & Twenty-Three–Motion of Defendant Trader

Defendants Stillis and Trader were convicted of knowingly and intentionally 

distributing, and aiding and abetting the distribution of approximately 244.3 grams of cocaine on

or about July 15, 2004–the crime charged in Count Twenty-Two of the Superseding Indictment. 

The essential elements of that crime are that (1) the defendant, on or about the date alleged in the

count, transferred the controlled substance to another person described in the indictment; (2) the

defendant knew that the substance was a controlled substance; and, (3) the defendant acted

intentionally, that is, that it was his conscious object to transfer the controlled substance to

another person. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Defendants Stillis and Trader were also

convicted on Count Twenty-Three, which was paired with Count Twenty-Two and charged that

the sale of the approximately 244.3 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of cocaine took place within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising the Toby Farms

Elementary School, a public elementary school located at 201 Bridgewater Road, Brookhaven,

Pennsylvania, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1).

The evidence presented at trial with respect to Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three

consisted of testimony from undercover state trooper Scott Miscannon who testified concerning

the buy on July 15, 2004, of 244.3 grams of cocaine from Stillis and Trader. Trooper Miscannon

testified, inter alia, that both defendants Stillis and Trader were present during the July 15, 2004

sale, and that defendant Trader made a comment during the course of that transaction about the

“quality of the cocaine.” N.T. 1/8/2007, at 33. 

In the oral motion for judgment of acquittal, defendant Trader argued that Trooper

Miscannon’s testimony only related “to the interaction between Stillis and the Trooper,” and

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 12 of 17
13

“was not part of the sale, because Mr. Trader before the sale had no interaction, at least pursuant

to the trooper’s testimony that contributed to the sale.” N.T. 1/16/2007, at 81. In other words,

defendant Trader argued that because his comments that appeared to vouch for the quality of the

cocaine occurred after the transaction, that vouching is not properly viewed as aiding and

abetting the sale. In ruling on the oral motion of defendant Trader for judgment of acquittal as to

Count Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three, the Court stated: 

And with respect to Count 22, I believe there is sufficient evidence . . . viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, that Mr. Trader either

participated in the transaction referenced in Count 22 -- Counts 22 and 23, or aided and

abetted that transaction. So, the motions of all of the defendants for judgment of acquittal

under Rule 29 are denied. 

N.T. 1/16/2007, at 111.

In the present Motion, with respect to Count Twenty-Two (and presumably Count

Twenty-Three), defendant Trader states in total: “Defendant made an oral motion for judgment of

acquittal with respect to Counts One and Twenty Two of the Indictment, which were denied by

this Honorable Court on January 17, 2007 (sic). Defendant renews its motion for judgment of

acquittal and avers that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” Trader Mot.

at 4.

In response to this Motion, the government responds that “Trader’s comment as the sale

was completed, that the drugs were ‘better’ than those previously delivered, showed not only his

knowledge of the nature of the meeting on July 15, but of the fact that he knew Stillis had

delivered to Miscannon in the past. The jury had ample evidence upon which to convict Trader

of distribution, and aiding and abetting distribution, on that date.” Resp. at 6.

With regard to the distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 13 of 17
With respect to the crime of distribution of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a 3

school, the crime charged in Count Twenty-Three, the Court further explained that, “in order to

find a defendant guilty of a crime of distribution of a controlled substance within a thousand feet

of a school the Government must prove the three elements of distribution: transfer of a controlled

substance, knowledge that it was a controlled substance and intent . . . all of which I’ve covered.” 

N.T. 1/18/2007, at 85. 

14

§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), the Court instructed the jury at trial, inter alia, as follows: 

Distribution does not require a sale. Activities in furtherance of the ultimate sale, such as

vouching for the quality of the drugs, negotiating for or receiving the prices, and

supplying or delivering the drugs may constitute distribution. In short, distribution

requires a concrete involvement in the transfer of the drugs.

N.T. 1/18/2007, at 81. 

3

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, the Court concludes 

that there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant Trader aided and abetted the crimes

charged in Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three. Trooper Miscannon testified that defendant

Trader was present with defendant Stillis throughout the course of the sale and “vouched” for the

quality of the drugs. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Government, the Court

concludes that the verdict must be upheld because a reasonable juror “could accept the evidence

as sufficient to support the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

Coleman, 811 F.2d at 807. Accordingly, defendant Trader’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

pursuant to Rule 29 is denied with respect to the convictions on Counts Twenty-Two and

Twenty-Three of the Superseding Indictment.

For essentially the same reason, the Court concludes that a new trial is not 

warranted. Specifically, the evidence of defendant Trader’s presence during the sale and his

comment about the quality of the cocaine demonstrates that the jury’s verdict was not contrary to

the weight of the evidence. Defendant Trader has not shown that there is serious danger that a

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 14 of 17
15

miscarriage of justice has occurred with respect to the conviction on Counts Twenty-Two and

Twenty-Three. See Davis, 397 F.3d at 181. The Motion for New Trial pursuant to Rule 33 of

defendant Trader is denied as to Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons defendant Trader’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or 

Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33 is denied. Defendant Stillis’s

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to

F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33, and the Second Supplement to Defendant Stillis’s Motion for

Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.CR.P. 29 and

F.R.CR.P. 33 are denied with respect to defendant Stillis’s challenge to his conviction on Count

One of the Superseding Indictment. The Court reserves ruling on the conviction of defendant

Stillis on Count Fifty-Three.

An appropriate Order follows.

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 15 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

 :

vs. :

 :

LOUIS STILLIS, a/k/a “Lou Bop,” : NO: 04-680-03

TYRONE TRADER, a/k/a “Saleem” : -06

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2007 upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for

Judgment of Acquittal and/or Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33,

filed by defendant Trader (Documents No. 450 & 451, filed January 25, 2007); Defendant’s

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to

F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33, filed by defendant Stillis (Document No. 452, filed February 14,

2007); Government’s Consolidated Response to Defendants Stillis’ and Trader’s Motions for

Acquittal or For New Trial (Document No. 453, filed February 22, 2007); Second Supplement to

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial

Pursuant to F.R.CR.P. 29 and F.R.CR.P. 33 filed by defendant Stillis (Document No. 476, filed

May 23, 2007), joined in by defendant Tyrone Trader; Defendant’s Motion for Joinder with CoDefendant Stillis’ 2nd Supplemental Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or Motion for New

Trial Pursuant to F.R.CR.P. 29 and F.R.CR.P. 33 filed by defendant Trader (Document No. 480,

filed June 6, 2007); and Government’s Consolidated Response to Defendants Stillis’ Second

Supplement to Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal or for New Trial, Joined by Tyrone Trader

(Document No. 481, filed June 7, 2007), for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or Motion for New Trial 

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 16 of 17
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33, filed by defendant Trader (Documents No. 450 & 451)

is DENIED;

2. Defendant’s Motion for Joinder with Co-Defendant Stillis’ 2nd Supplemental 

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and/or Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.CR.P. 29 and

F.R.CR.P. 33 filed by defendant Trader (Document No. 480) is GRANTED; 

2. The Court RESERVES ruling on that part of Defendant’s Motion for Judgment 

of Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33,

filed by defendant Stillis (Document No. 452) that addresses the non-jury conviction on Count 53

of the Superseding Indictment;

3. In all other respects, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the 

Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 29 and F.R.C.P. 33, filed by defendant

Stillis (Document No. 452) and the Second Supplement to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of

Acquittal or in the Alternative Motion for New Trial Pursuant to F.R.CR.P. 29 and F.R.CR.P. 33

filed by defendant Stillis (Document No. 476) are DENIED

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Honorable Jan E. DuBois 

 JAN E. DUBOIS, J.

Case 2:04-cr-00680-JD Document 486 Filed 07/17/07 Page 17 of 17