United States v. Sheehan (2016)

In so doing, we examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government, crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor, and deferring to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and its assessment of the weight of the evidence.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Even where an instruction is erroneous, we will affirm if it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2016).

Assuming, as we must, that the jury credited this testimony, see United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2016), that testimony was sufficient for a rational jury to convict Robinson of possession, see United States v. Facen, 812 F.3d 280, 287 (2d Cir. 2016) (holding evidence of constructive possession sufficient when ammunition found in residence containing defendant’s “personal documents”); United States v. Bullock, 550 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding evi…

United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2016).

In so doing, we examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government, crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor, and deferring to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and its assessment of the weight of the evidence.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Caltabiano, 871 F.3d at 215 (quotation marks omitted). 10 1 DISCUSSION 2 I 3 “If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter 4 an acquittal” pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c), but it may do so only when 5 “there is ‘no evidence upon which a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable 6 doubt.’”30 7 We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, though a defendant 8 “carries a …

Even where an instruction is erroneous, we will affirm if it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). 26 United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 275 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2016).

As to Defendants’ argument regarding the district court’s “uncalled witness” instruction, we review claims of flawed jury instructions de novo, “reversing only where, viewing the charge as a whole, there was prejudicial error.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2016).

Further, because Defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s statements during summation, we may not grant a new trial based on such statements “absent flagrant abuse.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 128 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 103 (2d Cir. 2000)).

The first statement, “viewed against the entire argument to the jury,” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 128 (2d Cir. 2016), was not personal vouching for witnesses, but another attempt to focus the jury on the evidence.

We “will uphold the conviction ‘if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Chavez, 549 F.3d at 124 ).

United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Heder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999)). 91 .

To secure such relief, he must show misconduct that, “viewed against the entire argument to the jury, and in the context of the entire trial,” was so “severe and significant” as to deny a him “fair trial.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 128 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Giordano’s second Rule 60(b) motion for relief, doc. no. 250, is denied. 7 Pursuant to the “harmless error” standard, “[a]n erroneous [jury] instruction, unless harmless, requires a new trial.” United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 121 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552, 556 (2d Cir. 1994)).

See, e.g., United States v. Kirkland, 909 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that a homemade bomb fell within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 5845 (f), even though the device needed eight batteries to be detonated, in part because batteries are common household items ‘readily available to an ordinary consumer’”); United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 125 (2d Cir. 2016) (affirming a conviction under 26 U.S.C. 5845(f) where the destructive device required tape to be functio…

In each of those cases, however, even though the device could not explode as designed, the government offered evidence that the device at issue was capable of exploding on its own without additional parts.7 Accordingly, the cases cited by the government do not 7 See United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 118 (2nd Cir. 2016) (upholding conviction because jury could have relied on expert testimony “that the device could be detonated in some manner, such as by dropping the dev…

See United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 117 (2d Cir. 2016) (discussing evidence that an otherwise dysfunctional explosive device could unintentionally detonate when exposed to “heat, shock, or friction”). 9 Simply prohibiting the mailing of all explosives in whatever form is far more consistent with the statutory purpose as even Young and Volious conceive of it.

See United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 125 (2d Cir. 2016) (upholding a conviction even though the device lacked a piece of tape needed to connect the wires to the battery); United States v. Russell, 468 F. Supp. 322 , 329–30 (S.D.

See United States v. Sheehan, 838 F.3d 109, 119 (2d Cir. 2016) (stating that court reviewing sufficiency challenge must “credit[ ] every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor” (internal quotation marks omitted)).