The payments to DiMasi were made in the form of purported referral fees through his unwitting associate in the practice of law Stephen Topazio, and through Vitale. See United States v. DiMasi, 810 F. Supp. 2d 347, 356-62 (D. Mass. Aug. 30, 2011).

In addition, on a Rule 33 motion, the Court may "consider whether its evidentiary rulings at trial were correct." United States v. DiMasi, 810 F. Supp. 2d 347, 362 (D. Mass. 2011) (citing Wilkerson, 251 F.3d at 279–80 ).

“[T]he Court may evaluate ‘whether its evidentiary rulings at trial were correct.' ” United States v. Deschambault, No. 2:19-cr-00187-JAW, 2023 WL 4974003, at *6 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2023) (quoting United States v. DiMasi, 810 F.Supp.2d 347, 362 (D. Mass. 2011)).

Moreover, “a defendant's intent can be inferred from his conduct, seen in the light of all the surrounding circumstances.” United States v. DiMasi, 810 F.Supp.2d 347, 353 (D. Mass. 2011) aff'd sub. nom. United States v. McDonough, 727 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). In “cases in which it is alleged that public officials have corruptly sold the powers of their office,” this principle carries “special relevance.” Id.

United States v. DiMasi, 810 F.Supp.2d 347, 353 (D. Mass. 2011) aff'd sub. nom. United States v. McDonough, 727 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). In “cases in which it is alleged that public officials have corruptly sold the powers of their office,” this principle carries “special relevance.” Id.

In addition, on a Rule 33 motion the Court may "consider whether its evidentiary rulings at trial were correct." United States v. DiMasi, 810 F. Supp. 2d 347, 362 (D. Mass. 2011) (citing Wilkerson, 251 F.3d at 279-80). "However, a new trial is justified only if an error concerning the admission of evidence was made and the error was not 'harmless,'" meaning that, even if an error was made, "it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict."

In making this inquiry, the court must consider all evidence presented to the jury, "regardless of whether it was properly admitted." United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 824 F.2d 572, 588 (1st Cir. 1987); accord United States v. DiMasi, 810 F. Supp. 2d 347, 351 (D. Mass. 2011). B. Rule 33

Improper admission of hearsay evidence can warrant a new trial under Rule 33. See, e.g., United States V. Arroyo, 805 F.2d 589, 597-99 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. DiMasi, 810 F.Supp.2d 347, 350-51 (D. Mass. 2011); United States v. Pollack, 701 F.Supp. 117, 120-21 (N.D. Tex. 1988), aff'd, 890 F.2d 1162 (5th Cir. 1989). The Court agrees, however, that sufficient testimony and evidence supported admission of the text messages as statements against S.W.'s interest under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3).

” United States v. DiMasi, 810 F.Supp.2d 347, 362 (D. Mass. 2011), affd sub nom. United States v. McDonough, 727 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Wilkerson, 251 F.3d at 279-80)

United States v. Merlino, 592 F.3d 22, 33 (1st Cir. 2010). For instance, the Court may evaluate “whether its evidentiary rulings at trial were correct.” United States v. Dimasi, 810 F.Supp.2d 347, 362 (D. Mass. 2011) (citing United States v. Wilkerson, 251 F.3d 273, 279 (1st Cir. 2001)).