USA v. Moore

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAYSHON MOORE,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:20-cr-00029-SLG
ORDER REGARDING RULE 29 MOTION
Before the Court at Docket 233 is defendant Jayshon Moore’s Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal. The government responded in opposition at Docket 236.
At the close of the government’s case-in-chief during the trial in this case,
Mr. Moore moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts.1 Mr. Moore renewed
his motion at the close of all evidence.2 The Court reserved ruling on the motions.3
The case was submitted to the jury, which returned guilty verdicts against Mr.
Moore on all three counts.4
1 Docket 217 at 1 (Apr. 12, 2022 Minutes).
2 Docket 219 at 2 (Apr. 13, 2022 Minutes).
3 Docket 217 at 1; Docket 219 at 2. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b) (“The court may reserve
decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all
the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a
verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict.”).
4 Docket 227 (jury verdict).
Case 3:20-cr-00029-SLG-MMS Document 237 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cr-00029-SLG, United States v. Moore
Order Re: Rule 29 Motion
Page 2 of 3
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, the Court must decide
the motions for judgments of acquittal “on the basis of the evidence at the time the
ruling was reserved.”5 The Court assesses the evidence to determine whether it
is sufficient to sustain a conviction.6 The evidence is sufficient to sustain a
conviction if, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offenses
charged beyond a reasonable doubt.’”7 The “evidence is insufficient to support a
verdict where mere speculation, rather than reasonable inference, supports the
government's case.”8
When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a
court does not determine witness credibility and does not consider how it would
have resolved conflicts in the evidence.9 “Therefore, in a case involving factual
disputes and credibility determinations, we “must presume . . . that the trier of fact
resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that
resolution.”10 The Court has reviewed the case law cited by Mr. Moore and by the
government relating to knowing possession of child pornography.
5 Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b).
6 Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a).
7 United States v. Rosales, 516 F.3d 749, 751–52 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v.
Hinton, 222 F.3d 664, 669 (9th Cir. 2000)).
8 United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
9 United States v. Alarcon-Simi, 300 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 2002).
10 United States v. H.B., 695 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nevils, 598 F.3d at 1164)
Case 3:20-cr-00029-SLG-MMS Document 237 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:20-cr-00029-SLG, United States v. Moore
Order Re: Rule 29 Motion
Page 3 of 3
Applying these standards and the relevant caselaw, the Court finds that
there was sufficient evidence at trial both after the close of the government’s case-
in-chief and at the close of Mr. Moore’s case-in-chief to support the convictions
against Mr. Moore. The Court also specifically finds that there was sufficient
evidence after the close of the government’s case-in-chief and after the close of
Mr. Moore’s case-in-chief to support the jury’s finding that Mr. Moore knowingly
possessed child pornography images (Exhibits 5 and 6).
In light of the foregoing, the Rule 29 motions made on April 12, 2022, and
April 13, 2022, and the motion at Docket 233 are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of May, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
(ellipsis in H.B.).
Case 3:20-cr-00029-SLG-MMS Document 237 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 3