Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Order on Defendant's Motion for Aquittal

Order on Defendant's Motion for Aquittal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 102|Likes:
Published by Erin Fuchs

More info:

Published by: Erin Fuchs on Sep 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWACENTRAL DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,vs.MANDY MARTINSON andKRISTOFER VOIGT,Defendants.
CR 04-3018-JEGORDER ON DEFENDANT’SMOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
The matter now before the Court is Defendant Mandy Martinson’s RenewedMotion for Judgment of Acquittal, filed on October 7, 2004. On October 15, 2004, theGovernment filed a resistance to the motion. The parties have not requested a hearing,nor does the Court deem one is necessary. The matter is fully submitted and readyfor disposition.
SUMMARY OF MATERIAL FACTS
On January 14, 2004, a team of law enforcement agents executed a searchwarrant at Defendant Mandy Martinson’s residence. Justin Dana and Mandy Martinsonwere in the basement of the residence at the time of the raid. Officers seized largequantities of methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as other items including drug paraphernalia, a safe, and two handguns.
Case 3:04-cr-03018-MWB Document 112 Filed 11/01/04 Page 1 of 10
 
1
Defendant Voigt has not joined in this motion; therefore, the Court does notdiscuss the jury’s findings as to him.
2
On April 23, 2004, a five-count grand jury indictment was filed against four Defendants, Justin Dana, Mandy Martinson, Troy Moran, and Kristofer Voigt. Defen-dant Martinson was named in three of those counts: (1) Count 1- conspiracy todistribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and/or marijuana; (2) Count 4 - possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine; and(3) Count 5 - possession of a firearm (Taurus 9mm semi-automatic handgun) infurtherance of a drug trafficking crime.The case against Defendants Martinson and Voigt proceeded to jury trial which began on September 28, 2004. During the trial, the Government presented evidencewhich included the testimonies of three officers present during the raid of Martinson’sresidence on January 14, 2004, the testimony of co-conspirator Justin Dana and the physical evidence, including the methamphetamine and marijuana, seized during theraid. At the close of the Government’s case, Defendants Martinson and Voigt movedfor judgment of acquittal. The Court denied those motions, finding enough evidencehad been presented to generate a jury question.The jury returned its verdict on September 30, 2004, and found DefendantMartinson guilty on all counts.
1
The verdict forms for Counts One and Four included
Case 3:04-cr-03018-MWB Document 112 Filed 11/01/04 Page 2 of 10
 
3
interrogatories about drug quantities. On Count One, the jury found the quantity of methamphetamine attributable to Defendant Martinson was 50 grams or more of actualmethamphetamine or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing metham- phetamine. As to Count Four, the jury found the quantity of methamphetamine involvedwas a measurable amount of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine.On October 7, 2004, Defendant Martinson filed a renewed motion for judgmentof acquittal, arguing the evidence presented by the Government was insufficient tosustain a conviction. The Government resists that motion, arguing it provided sufficientevidence at trial for the jury to find Defendant guilty of the charges.
DISCUSSION
Rule 29(a) states that the Court may grant a defendant “a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or information after the evidence oneither side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offenseor offenses.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). The district court has very limited latitude whenconsidering a motion for acquittal. United States v. Hernandez, 301 F.3d 886, 889 (8thCir. 2002). “In ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the role of the district courtis not to weigh evidence or consider the credibility of the witnesses, but rather todetermine whether the Government has presented evidence on each element sufficientto support a jury verdict.” United States v. Chavez, 230 F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.
Case 3:04-cr-03018-MWB Document 112 Filed 11/01/04 Page 3 of 10

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->