United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
CHARLEZ C. LOVEL, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is "Defendant Milsten's Rule 29(c) Motion
to Set Aside the Verdict and Enter a Judgment of
Acquittal" as to Counts II and III of the Indictment.
(Doc. 150). The United States opposes the motion. The Court
has reviewed the record in its entirety and is prepared to
Grand Jury charged Defendant Milsten with conspiracy to
commit robbery affecting commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a) (Count I), with robbery affecting commerce in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count II) and with
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(2) (Count III).
Defendant Milsten was also charged in Counts II and III with
aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and
under a Pinkerton liability theory.
October 3, 2018, at the close of the government's
evidence, Defendant Milsten made a Rule 29 Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal as to all three counts of the
Indictment, which was denied. Defendant Milsten renewed her
motion after all the parties had rested, later that day, and
the Court denied the renewed motion. On October 4, 2018, a
unanimous jury found Defendant Milsten guilty of all three
counts charged in the Indictment. Now before the Court is
Defendant's timely-filed renewed Motion for Judgment of
Acquittal as to Counts II and III of the Indictment, which is
again opposed by the government.
familiar standard for deciding a motion for acquittal, as
articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, requires this
Court to determine whether, "after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." 443
U.S. 307, 319 (l979)(emphasis in original). In making this
determination, this Court neither resolves credibility issues
nor weighs the evidence, as those are questions for the jury.
United States v. Burns, 701 F.2d 840, 842
(9th Cir. 1983).
- COUNT II
jury convicted Defendant Milsten of Count II, robbery
affecting commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
The parties submitted a joint instruction as to the essential
elements of that crime and the following instruction was
given to the jury:
order for a defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the
government must prove each of the following elements beyond a
the defendant knowingly obtained money or property from or in
the presence of Patrick Lovett;
the defendant did so by means of robbery;
the defendant believed that Patrick Lovett parted with the
money or ...