Court Opinion

ID: 9798490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 05:05:50.665967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:36.395601
License: Public Domain

WATFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I don’t think the district court needs to reconsider its decision to grant a new trial; it just needs to explain in more detail its reasons for reaching that decision. The court presumably decided to grant a new trial “[i]n the interest of justice” under Rule 33 because it believed the evidence preponderated heavily against the verdict. See United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1097 (9th Cir.2000). The court’s or- . der did not make that explicit, however, so vacating and remanding the portion of the order granting a new trial makes sense. While the court’s analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence does not warrant granting a judgment of acquittal, that analysis fully supports the court’s decision to grant a new trial. When a district court concludes that the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict, after independently weighing the evidence and evaluating for itself the credibility of the witnesses (as it’s entitled to do under Rule 33), we owe that determination the highest level of deference. See id.