Opinion ID: 785912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: timeliness of motion for judgment of acquittal

Text: 7 As a preliminary matter, we address the government's argument that the defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal were untimely under Rule 29(c)(1) and invalid because Rule 47 requires motions to be made in writing. 8 Motions for judgment of acquittal must be made within seven days after the verdict or the discharge of the jury or within any other time the court sets during the 7-day period. Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c)(1). Here, the defense made oral motions immediately following the guilty verdict. Viayra's counsel stated, I'm renewing my Rule 29 motion .... as to every count, and Guerra's attorney joined the motion. The court acknowledged the motions and set a briefing schedule. Counsel and the court engaged in considerable back and forth on the briefing schedule in the months following the verdict. 9 The government maintains that because the defendants did not adhere to the court's briefing deadlines, the motions were perforce untimely. This argument ignores the difference between the oral motions and the follow-up briefing. The motions were timely when made after the verdict, as the district court acknowledged on several occasions. For example, in response to defense counsel's request for more time to file briefs in support of the motion, the court said: I can give you more time. You made your motion in court. In two separate orders, the district court confirmed that the motions were made after the verdict. In its order granting a new trial, the district court stated: The defendants renewed their Rule 29 motions after the jury returned its verdict. In an order issued in response to the government's motion to dismiss Viayra's Rule 29 motion as untimely, the district court explained: Viayra made a Rule 29 motion immediately after the jury returned a verdict. The parties were then allowed time to brief that motion.... 10 Stretching Rule 47 to the extreme, the government contends that the oral motions had to be in writing because they were not made during a trial or hearing. Rule 47(b) provides otherwise: A motion — except when made during a trial or hearing — must be in writing, unless the court permits the party to make the motion by other means. Fed.R.Crim.P. 47(b). Rule 47 could not be any clearer: even outside the context of a trial or hearing, a district court may accept motions made by other means (i.e., orally). Id. In addition, oral motions made immediately after a verdict is announced surely constitute motions made during a trial or a hearing. 11 In common sense terms, the motions were part of the trial process. In the nano-second between the verdict and the motions, the trial did not end. Even if a hypertechnical view leads to the conclusion that the trial had ended, then surely a post-trial hearing had begun. Either way, a written motion was not required. 12 The realities of trial practice support this view. A motion for judgment of acquittal is often made orally following the verdict. Because such a motion is required to preserve certain arguments on appeal, trial counsel is understandably anxious to get the motion on the record. The fact that an oral motion is often followed by more detailed briefing does not change the fact that the motion was made. The oral motions were both timely and sufficient. 13 Finally, the government asks us to invalidate the motions because the grounds were not explicitly stated in the oral motions, as required by Rule 47. Fed.R.Crim.P. 47(b) (motion must state grounds on which it is based). Several of our sister circuits have held that Rule 29 motions for acquittal do not need to state the grounds upon which they are based because the very nature of such motions is to question the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. United States v. Gjurashaj, 706 F.2d 395, 399 (2d Cir.1983); see also United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1356 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Spinner, 152 F.3d 950, 955 (D.C.Cir.1998); 2A Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 466 (3d ed. 2000) (Specificity is not required by Rule 29 or by Rule 47 [for motions for judgment of acquittal].). We agree with this analysis and further note that the defendants' motions were predicated on grounds articulated in the previous motions.