From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Wiltshire

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Nov 13, 2007
7:06-CR-0245 (GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2007)

Opinion

7:06-CR-0245 (GHL).

November 13, 2007

OF COUNSEL: JOHN L. CALCAGNI III, ESQ., Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, New York.

SETH BUCHMAN, ESQ., OFFICE OF SETH BUCHMAN, Counsel for Defendant, Three Mile Bay, New York.


ORDER


Defendant has moved for a new trial. (Dkt. No. 29.) The Government has opposed the motion. (Dkt. No. 32.)

Although Defendant references a number of purported issues (Dkt. No. 29-3), his ultimate claim appears to be that the prosecutor's rebuttal summation, to the extent that it addressed a "mathematical formula" (Dkt. No. 29-3) based upon Dr. Closson's testimony, was improper. I disagree, and find that the rebuttal summation was fair comment based upon the evidence produced at trial. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 29) is DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Wiltshire

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Nov 13, 2007
7:06-CR-0245 (GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2007)
Case details for

U.S. v. Wiltshire

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARK ANTHONY WILTSHIRE, JR., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Nov 13, 2007

Citations

7:06-CR-0245 (GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2007)