United States Second Circuit

In the government's appeal from the district court's order granting a new trial in an attempted murder prosecution, the order is reversed where the district court erred in ordering a new trial because: 1) the district court's jury instructions on intentional conduct were legally correct and did not constitute plain error warranting a new trial; 2) the district court's use of a general verdict form was not plain error and thus not a basis for ordering a new trial; 3) the district court rested its decision to grant a new trial on clearly erroneous factual findings; and 4) the district court failed to evaluate the entire trial record in ruling on defendant's motion for a new trial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/20/2009
• Published 10/20/2009

Judges

• PER CURIAM:, Before:  MINER and CABRANES, Circuit Judges, RAKOFF, District Judge.

Court

• United States Second Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Tracy Lee Dayton, Assistant United States Attorney (Michael J. Gustafson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief, Nora R. Dannehy, Acting United States Attorney, William J. Nardini, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel) Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, CT, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• John R. Gulash, Gulash & Riccio, Bridgeport, CT, for Appellee.