United States Sixth Circuit

Following their conviction on charges involving insider trading, denial of defendants' motion for judgment of acquittal and/or motion for a new trial are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) a variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial on the conspiracy counts resulted in substantial prejudice; 2) the jury verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence and was not supported by sufficient evidence; 3) the jury relied on material outside the record in its deliberations; 4) defense counsel failed to present an adequate defense at trial due to the district court's exclusion of certain expert testimony; 5) the jury instructions were inadequate; and 6) prejudice resulted from the cumulative effect of errors made by the district court.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/26/2007
• Published 10/26/2007

Judges

• Before: DAUGHTREY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges;  ADAMS, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Chad A. Readler, Jones Day, Columbus, Ohio, W. Joseph Edwards, Law Office of W. Joseph Edwards, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.  J. Michael Marous, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Chad A. Readler, Jones Day, Columbus, Ohio, W. Joseph Edwards, Law Office of W. Joseph Edwards, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.  J. Michael Marous, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.