From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Chi Meng Yang

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 17, 2022
2:17-cr-00169-JAM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2022)

Opinion

2:17-cr-00169-JAM

06-17-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHI MENG YANG, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. OPINION

Before the Court is Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. See Mot. for New Trial (“Mot.”), ECF No. 360. Defendant raises the following grounds for a new trial: (1) the jury's verdict on the two related conspiracy charges is inconsistent and indicates the jury improperly convicted based on facts and overt acts not charged in the Superseding Indictment; and (2) the Court erred by precluding the defense of entrapment and entrapment by Estoppel and by excluding all evidence of California's medical marijuana laws. Id. The United States filed an opposition. See Opp'n, ECF No. 369. Defendant did not file a reply.

As to Defendant's first argument that the jury's inconsistent verdict must have been the product either of a constructive amendment to the Superseding Indictment or of juror confusion, the Court agrees with the United States that Defendant's “allegations in support this claim amount to little more than speculation.” Opp'n at 1. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Powell forecloses this argument. 469 U.S. 57, 65 (1984) (holding inconsistent verdicts are not a basis for granting a new trial as a matter of course). Defendant's first argument for a new trial fails.

As to Defendant's second argument that the Court erred in not issuing entrapment instructions, this argument fails because of the significant evidence of predisposition. See Opp'n at 7-9. That Defendant had been engaged in manufacturing marijuana before discussing the bribery scheme with Sheriff Lopey is not in dispute. Id. This was cemented by the evidence presented at trial. Id. In the face of such predisposition, an entrapment instruction would not have been proper. Id.

Finally, as to Defendant's argument concerning California's medical marijuana laws, the fact he was not permitted to confuse the jury with his subjective beliefs about California law did not create a “serious miscarriage of justice.” Opp'n at 10-11. A new trial is not warranted on these grounds either.

II. ORDER

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for a new trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Chi Meng Yang

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 17, 2022
2:17-cr-00169-JAM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Chi Meng Yang

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHI MENG YANG, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 17, 2022

Citations

2:17-cr-00169-JAM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2022)