United States v. Frank Giampa (1985)

United States v. Haren, 952 F. 2d 190 (CA8 1991); United States v. DiBernardo, 880 F. 2d 1216, 1225, n. 4 (CA11 1989); United States v. Coleman, 811 F. 2d 804 (CA3 1987); United States v. Giampa, 758 F. 2d 928, 936, n. 1 (CA3 1985); Arizona v. Manypenny, 672 F. 2d, at 765 ; Ansley v. United States, 135 F. 2d, at 208 ; see also United States v. Weinstein, 452 F. 2d 704, 713, 714 (CA2 1971); United States v. Broadus, 664 F. Supp. 592, 595-598 (DC 1987).

In evaluating whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction under one of these provisions, we must review “ ‘whether the Government has adduced sufficient evidence respecting each element of the offense charged to permit jury consideration.’ ” United States v. Goldblatt, 813 F.2d 619, 621 (3d Cir.1987) (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934 (3d Cir.1985)).

Co., 321 U.S. 29, 35 , 64 S.Ct. 409, 412 ; United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 935 (3d Cir. 1985)(“One of the oldest . . . rules of Anglo-American jurisprudence is that the jury is the arbiter of credibility of witnesses.”)(quoting United States v. Cravero, 530 F.2d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1976)); Sheridan v. E.

Co., 321 U.S. 29, 35 , 64 S.Ct. 409, 412 , 88 L.Ed. 520 ; United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 935 (3d Cir.1985))(“One of the oldest ... rules of Anglo-American jurisprudence is that the jury is the arbiter of credibility of witnesses.”)(quoting United States v. Cravero, 530 F.2d 666, 670 (5th Cir.1976)); Sheridan v. E.I.

United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 935 (3d Cir.1985) (citing United States v. Cravero, 530 F.2d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1976)).

In reviewing a denial of a motion for acquittal, this Court must review the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence. “[T]he district court must determine whether the Government has adduced sufficient evidence respecting each element of the offense charged to permit jury consideration.” United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934 (3d Cir.1985); Government of the *622 Virgin Islands v. Williams, 739 F.2d 936, 940 (3d Cir.1984).

United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934-935 (3d Cir.1985).

United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934 (3d Cir.1985).

According to the Third Circuit: “[A] judgment of acquittal should be entered only upon consideration of the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence.” United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934-35 (3d Cir.1985) (emphasis in original) (citing United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571 , 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1354-55 , 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977); United States v. Horton, 180 F.2d 427 (7th Cir.1950)); United States v. Goldblatt, 813 F.2d 619, 621 (3d Cir.1987); Government …

Rule 29(c), however, ‘creates a deadline by which defendants must present motions for acquittal to the court; it does not address the court’s inherent power to grant such a judgment.’ (quoting Manypenny, 672 F.2d at 764 .) Giampa, 758 F.2d at 936, n. 1 .

United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934 (3d Cir.1985).

United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934-5 (3rd Cir.1985).

Sec. 894 there must be both "an 'extension of credit' and the use of 'extortionate means.' " United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 933 (3d Cir.1985).

In order to find a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894 there must be both “an ‘extension of credit’ and the use of ‘extortionate means.’ ” United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 933 (3d Cir.1985).

The trial judge is deemed to have no special expertise in determining who speaks the truth.” United States v. Cravero, 530 F.2d 666, 670 (5th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 935 (3d Cir.1985); United States v. Blasco, 581 F.2d 681, 684-85 (7th Cir.1978).

See United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 933 (3rd Cir.1985) 4 See United States v. Mears, 614 F.2d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 945 , 100 S.Ct. 2174 , 64 L.Ed.2d 801 (1980) (affirming the district court's decision allowing the jury to change its verdict to "guilty" after the foreman declared in open court that the verdict form stating "not guilty" was incorrectly signed); United States v. Love, 597 F.2d 81, 85-87 (6th Cir.1979) (jury verdict changed after …

The charge in Count 13, making an extortionate extension of credit, requires that the defendant made "any extortionate extension of credit, or conspire[d] to do so.” 18 U.S.C. § 892 (a); see United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 933 (3d Cir. 1985) (noting that an extortionate extension of credit in turn requires "an, 'understanding of the creditor and debtor at the time [the extension of credit] is made that delay in making repayment or failure to make repayment could resul…

The trial judge is deemed to have no special expertise in determin- ing who speaks the truth.” United States v. Cravero, 530 F.2d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 935 (3d Cir. 1985); United States v. Blasco, 581 F.2d 681, 684-85 (7th Cir. 1978).

See United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934-35 (3d Cir.1985) (holding that a district court may not weigh the evidence or assess credibility in deciding a Rule 29 motion).

See United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934-35 (3d Cir. 1985).

See United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934-35 (3d Cir. 1985).

See United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934-35 (3d Cir. 1985).

See United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928, 934 (3d Cir.1985) (“a judgment of acquittal should be entered only upon consideration of the sufficiency of the Government’s evidence.”) (citing United States v. Martin Linen, 430 U.S. 564, 572 , 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1355 , 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977) and United States v. Horton, 180 F.2d 427 (7th Cir.1950)). “[T]he district court must determine whether the Government has adduced sufficient evidence respecting each element of the offense charge…

Id. at 765-66 ; see United States v. Giampa, 758 F.2d 928 , 936 n. 1 (3d Cir.1985) (court had inherent power to order judgment of acquittal sua sponte beyond scope of time set forth in Rule 29[c]) (citing Arizona v. Manypenny); United States v. Nava-Maldonado, 566 F.Supp. 1436, 1440 (D.Nev.1983) (same).

See id. at 936 n.