New Trials Under FRCP 33
Samuel Crittenden was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. He moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a), which “allows a district court to vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” The district court granted the motion, and the Government appealed.
The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to allow the district court to clarify whether it granted a new trial because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction or that, despite the sufficiency of the evidence, it “preponderated heavily against the guilty verdict.” The district court said it had cautiously reweighed the evidence, and found that, although sufficient to support the conviction, it preponderated heavily against Crittenden’s guilt. Specifically, the district court concluded that the evidence failed to show that Crittenden had knowledge of the nature of the controlled substance he possessed—as was required to convict him of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The Fifth Circuit panel found no error, recalling that under Supreme Court and Circuit precedent, a district court is permitted to carefully reweigh the evidence, make credibility determinations, and act as a “thirteenth juror” in considering a motion for a new trial.
The Fifth Circuit has since granted the Government’s motion for rehearing en banc.