. United States v. Ahern, 761 F.Supp. 1382, 1382-83 (S.D. Ind. 1991). "A motion for a new trial is not favored and should only be granted with great caution."

The motion for a new trial based on the weight or sufficiency of the evidence could be granted if the court reached the conclusion that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice may have resulted. E.g., United States v. Ahen, 761 F. Supp. 1382, 1382-83 (S.D. Ind. 1991); accord, United States v. Alanis, 265 F.3d 576, 591 (7th Cir. 2001); Washington, 184 F.3d at 657-58. Niemoeller also argues that a new trial should be granted because of the government's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, the court's exclusion of dietary supplement evidence, and the court's admission of the "Psychedelic Resource List," a publication with information about Niemoeller's business.

The motions for new trial based on the weight or sufficiency of the evidence could be granted if the court reached the conclusion that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice may have resulted. E.g., United States v. Ahern, 761 F. Supp. 1382, 1382-83 (S.D.Ind. 1991); accord, United States v. Washington, 184 F.3d at 657. Substantial evidence showed clearly that Macklin Brown was a part of the conspiracy. The evidence of Brown's role in helping to manage the conspiracy, in directing some sales and deliveries of heroin, and in managing the cash from heroin sales was extensive and credible.