Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneydiscoveryappealtrialverdicttestimonymotionlegal ethicsbeyond a reasonable doubtjury instructionspiracy
attorneydiscoveryappealtrialverdicttestimonymotionlegal ethicsbeyond a reasonable doubtjury instructionspiracy

Related Cases

People v. Kenelly, 648 P.2d 1065
View Case »
Dike v. Dike, 75 Wash.2d 1, 448 P.2d 490
View Case »
Solis v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass’n, 644 F.3d 221, 50 Employee Benefits Cas. 2697, Pens. Plan Guide (CCH) P 24009N
View Case »
Kriegsman v. Kriegsman, 150 N.J.Super. 474, 375 A.2d 1253
View Case »
Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 54 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 335, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5530, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7377

Facts

Daniel Kellington, a civil attorney from Medford, Oregon, was convicted of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with his representation of Peter MacFarlane, a fugitive. During a meeting in jail, MacFarlane asked Kellington to relay instructions to an employee regarding the removal and destruction of certain personal property. Kellington subsequently communicated these instructions to the employee, who began to execute them, leading to the discovery of evidence that implicated Kellington in obstructing justice. Kellington maintained that he was unaware of the illegal nature of the instructions he was passing along.

Daniel Kellington, a civil attorney from Medford, Oregon, was convicted of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with his representation of Peter MacFarlane, a fugitive. During a meeting in jail, MacFarlane asked Kellington to relay instructions to an employee regarding the removal and destruction of certain personal property. Kellington subsequently communicated these instructions to the employee, who began to execute them, leading to the discovery of evidence that implicated Kellington in obstructing justice. Kellington maintained that he was unaware of the illegal nature of the instructions he was passing along.

Issue

Did the district court err in granting Kellington a new trial after the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment of acquittal?

Did the district court err in granting Kellington a new trial after the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment of acquittal?

Rule

The district court has broad discretion to grant a new trial if it finds that the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict, indicating a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

The district court has broad discretion to grant a new trial if it finds that the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict, indicating a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

Analysis

The court found that the district court did not exceed its authority on remand by reinstating Kellington's motion for a new trial. It determined that the jury had been improperly instructed regarding the expert testimony on legal ethics, which was relevant to Kellington's intent. The court also noted that the government failed to prove Kellington's intent to obstruct justice beyond a reasonable doubt, thus justifying the new trial.

The court found that the district court did not exceed its authority on remand by reinstating Kellington's motion for a new trial. It determined that the jury had been improperly instructed regarding the expert testimony on legal ethics, which was relevant to Kellington's intent. The court also noted that the government failed to prove Kellington's intent to obstruct justice beyond a reasonable doubt, thus justifying the new trial.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant a new trial, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant a new trial, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Who won?

Daniel Kellington prevailed in the case because the court found that the district court acted within its discretion in granting a new trial based on the improper jury instructions and the evidence presented.

Daniel Kellington prevailed in the case because the court found that the district court acted within its discretion in granting a new trial based on the improper jury instructions and the evidence presented.

You must be