United States v. Richard E. Wall

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that, “given the lack of bad faith on the part of the government, and given the considerable evidence of Wall’s guilt, Wall failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor’s remarks amounted to a miscarriage of justice”
• “Commenting on a failure to call witnesses generally is not an error, unless the comment implicates the defendant’s right not to testify.”
• setting out the “five prerequisites (typically referred to as the Berry rule) that must be met to justify a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence”
• \A district court's decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.\
• appellate review of district courts Rule 33 decision “is necessarily deferential to the trial court”
• “[T]he trial court should not grant a motion for new trial unless there would be a miscarriage of justice or the weight of evidence preponderates against the verdict.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).