Opinion ID: 537466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of New Trial.

Text: 27 Defendant Migdaleck also contends the trial court erred in failing to recognize that it could weigh the credibility of witnesses when reviewing a new trial motion on the ground that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. 28 The trial court's authority in deciding a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, is much broader than its authority on a motion for acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence, Fed.R.Crim.P. 29. United States v. Turner, 490 F.Supp. 583, 593 (E.D.Mich.1979), aff'd (without opinion), 633 F.2d 219 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 912 (1981); United States v. Arrington, 757 F.2d 1484, 1485 (4th Cir.1985). In the former, the court may weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the witnesses. Turner, 490 F.Supp. at 593; Arrington, 757 F.2d at 1485. 29 Motions for new trial are disfavored and they are granted only with great caution. Turner, 490 F.Supp. at 593. Ordinarily, a new trial should be granted only where the evidence weighs so heavily against the verdict that a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were allowed to stand. Turner, at 593; Arrington, at 1485. A decision on a motion for new trial will not be upset on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Arrington, 757 F.2d at 1486. 30 The theory of defendant Migdaleck's motion is that the principal witness against him, Al Meredith, Sr., was completely unworthy of belief. At the hearing on the motion, defendant contended that without Meredith Sr.'s testimony, there was no proof defendant participated in the arsons, and the arsons were the whole crux of the case. The government contended that it had shown by circumstantial and direct evidence that defendant Midgaleck controlled the operation in that he paid all the participants and controlled the disbursement of insurance proceeds. 31 The trial court denied the new trial motion for two reasons: first, the court did not believe credibility questions could be raised by a new trial motion pursuant to United States v. Johnson, 2 487 F.2d 1278, 1280 (4th Cir.1973), and there was no basis to substitute the court's judgment for the jury in weighing the credibility of Al Meredith, Sr.; second, the court found the other evidence of Midgaleck's guilt was sufficient to support the verdict. The court noted that the jury was quite perceptive and found defendant failed to present anything to establish that the evidence preponderated heavily against the verdict. 32 Defendant is correct that the trial court failed to recognize that, on a motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, the court was indeed entitled to consider the credibility of the witnesses. If the sole basis for the district court's denial of the new trial motion was that credibility was not a proper subject for the court to examine, we would be inclined to remand this case to the district court to consider the credibility question. However, the court also found that the other evidence inculpating Migdaleck was sufficient to support the verdict, a conclusion well-supported in the record. Moreover, the district court commented favorably on the jury's ability to evaluate the evidence since it acquitted defendant Migdaleck on some of the charges. 33 Given the record supported alternative basis for the trial court's denial of the new trial motion, and the rule that a new trial should be granted on the ground here asserted only when the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion. 34