Opinion ID: 414394
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Standard for Ruling on the Motion for a New Trial

Text: 20 Both appellants challenge the district judge's denial of their motions for a new trial on a further ground. Pointing out that in denying these motions the judge referred back to his denials of their motions for acquittal, they contend that he mistakenly applied the same standard in considering both motions. 8 21 Appellants misread the court's order. While Graham's motion for a new trial alleged eight errors and Morris's seven, the memoranda in support thereof discussed only the variance issue. It was solely in response to this legal argument that the district judge referred to his earlier rulings, noting that the argument had been previously raised and rejected and that the Court stands by its previous rulings. Weighing the evidence and considerations of credibility have little to do with the variance issue. Thus, appellants' argument about the different standards is inapposite. 22 We assume that the district court considered and rejected defendants' other, unargued, assertions of error, most of which have been repeated before us. There is no indication that it applied an improper standard or abused its discretion in denying a new trial. See United States v. Wright, 625 F.2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir.1980).