IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
December 15, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
THOMAS G. ADCOCK, JR., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Thomas G. Adcock, Jr.'s Post-Trial Motions (d/e 56) for judgment of acquittal (pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c)), for a new trial (pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33), and for arrest of judgment (pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 34). On November 14, 2006, a jury found Defendant guilty on each of the twelve counts charged in the Indictment (d/e 1). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Adcock's Post-Trial Motions are DENIED.
Defendant Adcock raises various points in his Post-Trial Motions. Defendant first moves the Court to reverse all of its rulings denying any and all of Defendant's pre-trial Motions and evidentiary objections of record during the jury trial. The Court continues to believe that its rulings on Adcock's Motions and objections were correct at the time they were made, for the reasons stated of record or for the reasons stated in written Opinions. The Court therefore adopts the reasons stated in connection with the earlier rulings, denies this request, and will not reverse any of its pretrial or trial rulings which denied the Defendant's Motions and objections.
Defendant Adcock next moves the Court to vacate the verdicts, contending that the Government failed to present sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts of the Indictment. At the close of the Government's evidence, Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal. Similarly, Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of all evidence at trial on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to convict the Defendant on any of the charges in the Indictment. The Court denied those motions for the reasons stated of record at that time. The Court remains of the opinion that its reasons previously stated were correct and adopts those reasons in ruling on the pending motions. The Court denies this portion of Defendant Adcock's Motions for the same reasons.
Defendant lastly argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient because the Government's case lacked any corroboration on critical issues and sought only to rely on unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. Defendant's argument is unpersuasive. The Court remains of the opinion that the Government's evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant on all of the charges in the Indictment. This portion of Defendant's Post-Trial Motions is therefore denied.
THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant Adcock's Post-Trial Motions (d/e 56) are DENIED. This matter will proceed to sentencing, which is scheduled for January 22, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.
ENTER: December 15, 2006.
JEANNE E. SCOTT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.