Opinion ID: 617629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Hassebrock's Motion for a New Trial

Text: The district court also denied Hassebrock's motion for a new trial. A motion for a new trial that is based on the sufficiency of the evidence should be granted only if the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Riemer v. Ill. Dep't of Transp., 148 F.3d 800, 806 (7th Cir.1998). We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Willis, 523 F.3d 762, 771 (7th Cir.2008). Hassebrock contends that evidence of the filing extension preponderates heavily against the jury's verdict. This argument is essentially the same as the sufficiency argument that Hassebrock asserted in his motion for a judgment of acquittal. As previously noted, it is questionable whether his extension was truly granted. Further, even if it was granted, the jury still could have found that Hassebrock failed to file his tax returns on or before April 15, 2005, several months before he sent in any request for an extension. Given the weaknesses of Hassebrock's defenses and the need to draw all inferences in favor of the government, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to upset the jury's verdict in this case. Even when evidence is contradictory, [i]t's the jury's jobnot the district court's job or the job of a panel of appellate judgesto figure out who's telling the truth. Lowe v. Consol. Freightways of Del., 177 F.3d 640, 642-43 (7th Cir.1999) (The fact that [the defendant] presented evidence that is inconsistent with the jury's verdict does not mean that the verdict should be reversed.... The jury was there; it weighed the witnesses' credibility, considered the evidence, and reached a supportable conclusion.). We therefore affirm the district court's decision to deny Hassebrock's motion for a new trial.