U.S. v. Morales, 89-2053
| Decision Date | 20 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2053,89-2053 |
| Citation | 910 F.2d 467 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert MORALES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; William T. Hart, Judge.
Before POSNER, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
The government in asking for rehearing in United States v. Morales, 902 F.2d 604 (7th Cir.1990), picks out one sentence of our opinion as stating a new test for when a motion for a new trial in a criminal case should be granted. We did not intend to state a new test but merely to indicate as part of a much longer discussion some of the considerations that had moved us to conclude that the appellant in this case passed the old test, the test of Reed, which both the government and we consider canonical.
Lest others be confused on this point, we have decided to substitute for the quoted sentence as it appears in the advance sheets the following as more precisely expressive of our intended meaning:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Nichols
...v. Peterson, 823 F.3d 1113, 1122 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Morales, 902 F.2d 604, 606 (7th Cir. 1990), amended 910 F.2d 467 (7th Cir. 1990)). In other words, the Court should grant a motion for a new trial only if "the evidence 'preponderates so heavily against the verdict th......
-
US v. Olbres, Cr. No. 93-27-1-2-M.
...Morales, 902 F.2d 604, 608 (7th Cir.1990) (granting motion for new trial but denying motion for judgment of acquittal), amended, 910 F.2d 467 (7th Cir.1990). In this case defendants did not file a Rule 33 motion, and the court is powerless to consider or grant such a motion sua sponte. Fed.......
-
United States v. Thomas
..., 20 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Morales , 902 F.2d 604, 605 (7th Cir.), amended on other grounds , 910 F.2d 467 (7th Cir. 1990) ). Rule 33(b) places time restrictions on a defendant's ability to file such a motion:(1) Newly Discovered Evidence. Any motion for a ......
-
US v. Delano, No. 91-CR-47A.
...874 (1st Cir.1983) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Morales, 902 F.2d 604, 605 (7th Cir.), amended on other grounds, 910 F.2d 467 (1990). The burden of justifying a new trial rests with the defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Geders, 625 F.2d 31, 33 (5th Cir.1980); United S......