842 F.Supp. 891 (S.D.W.Va. 1994), Crim. 29300151-001, United States v. ReBrook

Docket Nº:Crim. 29300151-001
Citation:842 F.Supp. 891
Party Name:United States v. ReBrook
Case Date:January 19, 1994
Court:United States District Courts, 4th Circuit, Southern District of West Virginia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 891

842 F.Supp. 891 (S.D.W.Va. 1994)

UNITED STATES of America

v.

William Edward REBROOK III, Defendant.

Crim. No. 2:9300151-001.

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia.

Jan. 19, 1994

Page 892

Larry R. Ellis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Charleston, WV, for plaintiff.

A.T. Ciccarello, Charleston, WV, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HADEN, Chief Judge.

Pending is Defendant's motion for a new trial, filed in accordance with Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P. 1 The government has filed a response opposing the motion. On November 5, 1993, after a four-day trial, a jury convicted Defendant of both counts of a two-count indictment charging him with wire fraud and insider trading. The Court will sentence Defendant at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, February 7, 1994.

I.

Defendant argues he is entitled to a new trial 2 because the Court erred in denying his

Page 893

motions to dismiss the indictment filed prior to trial, and his oral motions for judgment of acquittal at trial. The Court thoroughly explained its rationale for denying the motions to dismiss the indictment in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed October 26, 1993. See supra note 1. Defendant offers no new or different legal or factual support for the motions. The Court denied the motions for judgment of acquittal after argument at trial; Defendant has not supplemented or otherwise modified the motions. The Court has addressed fully all these motions and concluded they are meritless. Defendant has proffered no reason to reconsider them here.

II.

Defendant contends the Court erred when it denied Defendant's motion for individual voir dire. The Court heard argument on this motion October 28, 1993, and ruled it would entertain suggested voir dire questions submitted by counsel, but would conduct the voir dire examination itself.

It is well settled a trial judge may conduct voir dire without allowing counsel to pose questions directly to potential jurors. Rule 24(a), Fed.R.Crim.P.; United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 734 (4th Cir.1991). A trial court possesses broad discretion in determining the manner in which voir dire is to be conducted. United States v. Robinson, 804 F.2d 280, 283 (4th Cir.1986).

During voir dire, the Court posed questions submitted by the parties in addition to its own. When it concluded, the Court asked the parties if they wished to suggest further questions for the prospective panel. In accordance with Rule 24(a), the Court then asked the additional questions the parties suggested. The Court questioned individually potential jurors whose...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP