Opinion ID: 795477
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaskett's Motion for a New Trial

Text: 54 In addition to seeking a judgment of acquittal, Plaskett also moved in the alternative for a new trial. Although the district court granted Plaskett's motion for a judgment of acquittal, it failed to rule upon his alternative motion. Plaskett cross-appeals the district court's failure to rule in the alternative. We agree with Plaskett that the district court erred when it failed to rule in the alternative on Plaskett's new trial motion. Rule 29(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that [i]f the [district] court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. Accordingly, we remand for the district court to rule in the first instance on Plaskett's motion for a new trial on Counts 28 through 32 of the indictment. 55