Also known as: motions for acquittal · judgment of acquittal · Rule 29 motion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device by which a defendant requests that the court enter a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court must grant the motion when no rational trier of fact could find every element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The device may be invoked after the government rests, at the close of all evidence, or within fourteen days after a guilty verdict or jury discharge.
Marco Marquez stood trial for wire fraud. After the government presented its witnesses and rested, defense counsel moved for acquittal. The court reviewed the record and found no evidence linking Marco to the charged transfers, so it entered judgment of acquittal on all counts.
Miranda Morales was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. Fourteen days later her counsel filed a renewed motion for acquittal. The court examined whether any rational juror could have found the required agreement and overt acts and granted the motion, setting aside the verdict.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Miles Montgomery faced charges of mail fraud. At the close of all evidence the defense moved for acquittal. The court applied the standard that asks whether a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and denied the motion because the government had introduced documents and testimony meeting that threshold.
Michelle Murphy was tried for alleged solicitation. After the government rested, her counsel moved for acquittal. The court concluded that the posts at issue were protected speech and that no reasonable juror could find the required intent to solicit harm, so it entered judgment of acquittal.
Malcolm McKinley was convicted following a trial that included photographic displays. On post-verdict motion the court granted acquittal because the identification procedures violated the Sixth Amendment and the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
Maya Malik was convicted of murder. On renewed motion for acquittal the court assessed whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, permitted any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt and denied the motion.
A defendant may move after the government closes its evidence, at the close of all evidence, or within fourteen days after a guilty verdict or jury discharge. The motion tests whether the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Supporting sources
Yes. An acquittal based on insufficient evidence is a determination on the merits that triggers double-jeopardy protection and prevents the government from retrying the same offense on the same facts.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 29(c)(3) expressly provides that a defendant need not move before submission to the jury in order to preserve the right to move after the jury is discharged.
Supporting sources
The court asks whether any rational trier of fact could find every element of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government.
Supporting sources
The court must also make a conditional ruling on any motion for new trial so that the appellate court knows whether a new trial would be required if the acquittal is later reversed.
Supporting sources
…that he wanted to shoot police officers. At the close of the State’s evidence, the trial court denied Clark’s motion for judgment of acquittal for failure to prove intent to kill a law enforcement officer or knowledge that Officer Moritz was a law enforcement officer. In presenting the defense case, Clark claimed mental illness,…