Judge William Kuntz
A jury found Fama guilty of armed bank robbery and using firearm to commit a crime of violence. Discussing Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33 the court denied Fama’s motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial because the government’s evidence was insufficient. Of his four sufficiency challenges, Fama extensively contested that of cooperating witness Mannino’s testimony, arguing that because of his criminal history—and perjury about an unrelated fraud conspiracy—Mannino’s testimony could not be trusted. Drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving credibility determinations in the government’s favor, as required by Rule 29, the court found the evidence against Fama legally sufficient to sustain conviction. Despite cross-examination of Mannino, and effective impeachment, the jury found his testimony about Fama’s commission of the subject crimes to be credible. Under Rule 29 the court must defer to the jury and resolve all questions of credibility in the government’s favor. Doing so—even if it were to credit Fama’s challenges to DNA evidence in Mannino’s car, cell site data and eyewitness identification or the lack thereof—the court found Fama’s conviction sufficiently supported by Mannino’s testimony.
