finding no error in prosecutor’s comments that responded to defense counsel’s attacks on witnesses who testified pursuant to plea agreements
How later courts described this case
- finding no error in prosecutor’s comments that responded to defense counsel’s attacks on witnesses who testified pursuant to plea agreements
- applying “clearly erroneous” standard and noting, that there “appear[ed] to be no practical difference” between that standard and the “without foundation” or “great deference” standards used in other cases
- distinguishing other terms, 20 such as “dedicated,” that are “implicitly not time-related”
- affirming denial of motion to sever where district court gave cautionary instruction to consider each defendant individually
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Feb. 25, 1994.
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing filed in the above entitled and numbered cause be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
Defendant Jerry Thomas Maxwell correctly points out in his Petition for Rehearing that he moved for a judgment of acquittal after the jury returned a verdict of guilty. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c). Accordingly, we must review Maxwell’s insufficiency of the evidence claim under the “rational jury,” and not the “manifest miscarriage of justice,” standard. See United States v. Galvan, 949 F.2d 777, 782-83 (5th Cir.1991). Under the rational jury standard, “we determine whether, viewing the evidence and the inference that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2952 , 119 L.Ed.2d 575 (1992). The evidence presented at trial, see United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1355-56 (5th Cir.1994), is sufficient to uphold Maxwell’s conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances under either the rational jury or the manifest miscarriage of,justice standard. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Maxwell’s conviction.