In the government's appeal from the district court's order granting a new trial in an attempted murder prosecution, the order is reversed where the district court erred in ordering a new trial because: 1) the district court's jury instructions on intentional conduct were legally correct and did not constitute plain error warranting a new trial; 2) the district court's use of a general verdict form was not plain error and thus not a basis for ordering a new trial; 3) the district court rested its decision to grant a new trial on clearly erroneous factual findings; and 4) the district court failed to evaluate the entire trial record in ruling on defendant's motion for a new trial.
Appellate Information
Argued: October 7, 2009
Decided: October 20, 2009
Judges
Per Curiam
Counsel
For Appellant:
Tracy Lee Dayton, Michael J. Gustafson, Nora R. Dannehy, William J. Nardini, Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Hartford, CT
For Appellee:
John R. Gulash, Gulash & Riccio, Bridgeport, CT, for Appellee.
