United States v. Van Eyl

88 Citing cases

  1. U.S. v. Smith

    320 F. App'x 456 (7th Cir. 2008)

    The jury having answered "yes" to that question brings the case to us on the defendants' appeal. The defendants contend, relying on United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2006), that the trial court improperly admitted certain lay-opinion testimony into evidence; the prosecution improperly emphasized that testimony; and the evidence was otherwise insufficient to convict. We start with the facts, viewed, as they must be at this time, in the light most favorable to the jury verdict.

  2. United States v. Williams

    No. 14 CR 557 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2016)

    Rather, "a defendant is entitled to a new trial if there is a reasonable possibility that a trial error had a prejudicial effect upon the jury's verdict." United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Eberhart, 388 F.3d 1043, 1048 (7th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds, 546 U.S. 12 (2005). Indeed, the Court cannot reweigh evidence or set aside a verdict because the Court thinks that another finding would have been more reasonable.

  3. United States v. Mpetshi

    Case No. 17-cr-30074 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2020)

    Id. (quoting United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297, 1312-13 (11th Cir.1985)); see also United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2011) (a motion for a new trial is granted only where the court finds the verdict is so contrary to the weight of the evidence that the interests of justice require a new trial). When a defendant seeks a new trial because of an alleged trial error, the court will grant a new trial if there is a "reasonable possibility that the error had a prejudicial effect upon the jury's verdict," see United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir.2006), or if the error "jeopardized the defendant's substantial rights." United States v. Reed, 986 F.2d 191, 192 (7th Cir. 1993).

  4. United States v. Nichols

    No. 15 CR 756-1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    Rejecting defendant's argument that physical abuse "was related to personal matters, not [his prostitution] business."

    Rather, "a defendant is entitled to a new trial if there is a reasonable possibility that a trial error had a prejudicial effect upon the jury's verdict." United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Kuzniar, 881 F.2d 466, 470 (7th Cir. 1989) ("[C]ourts have interpreted [Rule 33] to require a new trial in the interests of justice in a variety of situations in which the substantial rights of the defendant have been jeopardized by errors or omissions during trial."). However, "the exercise of power conferred by Rule 33 is reserved for only the most extreme cases."

  5. United States v. McClain

    20 CR 812 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    The Court should grant a new trial โ€œif there is a reasonable possibility that a trial error had a prejudicial effect upon the jury's verdict.โ€ United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428, 436, 438 (7th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's grant of new trial)

  6. United States v. Brown

    No. 14 CR 674 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    "A defendant is entitled to a new trial if there is a reasonable possibility that a trial error had a prejudicial effect upon the jury's verdict." United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Eberhart, 388 F.3d 1043, 1048 (7th Cir. 2004) ("'[C]ourts have interpreted [Rule 33] to require a new trial in the interests of justice in a variety of situations in which the substantial rights of the defendant have been jeopardized by errors or omissions during trial.'") (quoting United States v. Kuzniar, 881 F.2d 466, 470 (7th Cir. 1989))), overruled on other grounds, 546 U.S. 12 (2005).

  7. United States v. Chavez

    08 CR 746-5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2011)

    "A defendant is [also] entitled to a new trial if there is a reasonable possibility that a trial error had a prejudicial effect upon the jury's verdict." United States v. Van Eyl 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Berry. 92 F.3d 597, 600 (7th Cir. 1996)). The court does not view the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, but instead makes its own assessment.

  8. United States v. Garcia

    81 F.4th 691 (7th Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times
    Explaining the rebuttable presumption that the jury follows the court's jury instructions

    . Premature deliberations risk the jury losing that impartiality, United States v. Morales, 655 F.3d 608, 632 (7th Cir. 2011), and that loss would be grounds for a new trial, see United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2006); FED. R. CRIM. P. 33(a). Garcia points to three parts of the trial that he believes definitively showed the jury deliberated prematurely:

  9. United States v. Llufrio

    No. 18-3312 (7th Cir. Jul. 1, 2019)

    Thus, the argument is preserved. See United States v. Van Eyl, 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2006). Even so, the jury's verdict was in line with the weight of the evidence summarized above, so it would be frivolous to argue that the judge abused her discretion when she denied Llufrio's motion.

  10. United States v. Harden

    893 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2018)   Cited 25 times
    Affirming judgment and rejecting defendants' arguments "that the 'death results' enhancement in ยง 841(b) also requires proof of proximate causation" where the jury instructions provided, "[t]he United States does not have the burden of establishing that the defendant intended that death resulted from the distribution or the use of the controlled substance. Nor does the United States have the burden of establishing that the defendant knew, or should have known, that death would result from the distribution of the controlled substance by the defendant"

    This inquiry is highly fact-specific, and "[t]he district court judge is always in a better position than appellate judges to assess the probable reactions of jurors in a case over which that district judge has presided." United States v. Van Eyl , 468 F.3d 428, 436 (7th Cir. 2006). For that reason, "[w]e review a denial of a mistrial for an abuse of discretion with an extra helping of deference."