Opinion ID: 8414571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Verdict, Post-Trial Motions, and Sentencing

Text: The jury convicted Hilliard on Counts Two through Ten, but could not reach a verdict on Count One. 5 On December 30, 2014, Hilliard filed a motion for judgment of acquittal on Counts Two through Nine, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had not been entrapped. Hilliard also filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that: (1) Agent Labno had improperly offered expert opinions during cross-examination; (2) the district court had erred in denying Hilliard’s request for a mistrial based on the purported expert testimony by Agent Labno; (3) the district court had erred in admitting Hilliard’s pri- or convictions; and (4) the district court had erred in instructing the jury on a multi-factor test for predisposition. The district court denied both motions on January 15, 2015. However, it observed, “[T]his was a case which the defense could[ ha]ve won, or put another way, it’s a case where the government couldf hajve lost. There was obviously some weight, evidenced by the final verdict that was rendered, that within the jury itself there was some disagreement.” On January 11, 2016, Hilliard moved for reconsideration of the denial of his post-trial motions. The district court denied that motion on February 2, 2016. On the same day, Hilliard was sentenced to sixty-three months’ imprisonment on Counts Two through Seven and Count Nine, with all sentences running concurrently. Hilli-ard was sentenced to sixty months’ imprisonment on Count Eight, to run consecutively to the other sentences. In total, he was sentenced to 123 months’ imprisonment.