Opinion ID: 683548
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Jury's Verdict Against Lacy Thomas Was

Text: Against the Weight of the Evidence 40 Finally, Mr. Thomas argues that the district court erred in refusing his Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial. A district court judge is permitted to grant such a motion where the jury's verdict [is] against the weight of the evidence. Sokol Crystal Prods., Inc. v. DSC Comms. Corp., 15 F.3d 1427, 1432 (7th Cir.1994). We review the district judge's ruling for abuse of discretion. Id. In reviewing a motion for a new trial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. We will not set aside the jury's verdict if there is a reasonable basis in the record which supports that verdict. Allison v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 979 F.2d 1187, 1196 (7th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). 41 The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Lacy Thomas' motion for a new trial. The record reveals that the government proffered plenty of evidence upon which the jury reasonably could base its verdict in favor of the government; Lacy Thomas' evidence to the contrary does not outweigh the jury's conclusion. As recited earlier in this opinion, evidence showed that Lacy Thomas had checkwriting authority to the extent that he could decide whether to pay bills for less than $1,000. In fact, he was primarily responsible for paying vendors. He could also co-sign or refuse to co-sign some checks greater than $1,000 as well as prioritize the payment of bills in excess of $1,000. And he could have prevented Mile Square from meeting its payroll, though he could not sign payroll checks himself. Furthermore, Mr. Thomas admitted he knew at the time he wrote checks to other creditors that Mile Square had not paid its taxes to the government. From this evidence a reasonable juror could find that Lacy Thomas was both responsible and willful. 42 To counter this evidence, Mr. Thomas argues that he did not have the authority to pay the taxes and that he tried to persuade Mr. Cantrell to pay the taxes, going so far as to prepare the checks payable to the government and eventually quitting Mile Square when Cantrell refused to sign them. He also tried to show that he was a mere minion subject to the overpowering will of Mr. Cantrell. 43 First, whether or not Mr. Thomas could pay the taxes is not dispositive regarding his responsibility. Second, though his efforts to persuade Cantrell to pay the taxes may be laudable, they do not negate Mr. Thomas' culpability in paying other creditors. Finally, the evidence that Cantrell had complete control over the finances of Mile Square, while relevant and persuasive, is not so great as to prove that Lacy Thomas was not also responsible. The jury had the prerogative and the basis to decide either way regarding Mr. Thomas' responsibility. We will not go back now and question their credibility determinations and apportionment of prevailing weight where sufficient evidence exists to support their conclusions. 44 For the foregoing reasons, the jury verdicts in favor of the government and against Lacy Thomas, Colette Thomas, and Percy Giles are AFFIRMED.