USA v. Britton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
) 	JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AND
vs. 	) 	NEW TRIAL
)
Antjuan Dante Britton, 	) 	Case No. 3:20-cr-00147
)
Defendant. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendant Antjuan Dante Britton’s motion for judgment of acquittal
and a new trial filed on May 18, 2022. Doc. No. 127. The Government responded in opposition
to the motions on May 24, 2022. Doc. No. 129. For the reasons below, the motion is denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A superseding indictment charged Britton with (1) possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and (2) conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute or distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Doc. No. 74. The
Government alleged, among other things, that, Britton was part of a conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and heroin within the states of North Dakota and Minnesota and that on
February 26, 2020, Britton possessed methamphetamine in Fargo, North Dakota.
Trial commenced on May 3, 2022. Doc. No. 122. When the Government’s case-in-chief
concluded, Britton moved for judgment of acquittal based on a purported insufficiency of
evidence. Id. The Court denied the motion. Id. On May 9, 2022, the jury returned guilty verdicts
on both counts. Doc. No. 121. Britton now renews his motion for judgment of acquittal under
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Britton also moves for a new trial.
Case 3:20-cr-00147-PDW Document 130 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 3

2
II. 	DISCUSSION
Upon a defendant’s motion, a court “must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for
which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). A post-verdict
judgment of acquittal is warranted only if, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government and accepting all reasonable inferences that may be drawn in favor of the verdict, no
reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty.” United States v. Jenkins, 758 F.3d 1046,
1049 (8th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). “This standard is ‘very strict’ and a jury’s verdict should not
be overturned lightly.” United States v. Boesen, 491 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting United
States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d 859, 862 (8th Cir. 2005)). A reviewing court “must neither assess the
witnesses’ credibility nor weigh the evidence.” 	United States v. Johnson, 474 F.3d 1044, 1048
(8th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Thompson, 285 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2002)).
Britton asserts that the Government “simply asked the jury to believe all the testimony at
trial, despite contradicting statements from the witnesses.” Doc. No. 128, p. 2. Britton further
argues that the testimony showed only purchases (rather than purchases to be resold), which he
contends do not constitute a conspiracy. Id.
Judgment of acquittal is improper here. To the extent Britton’s motion asserts that the jury
should have believed some testimony over other, it is unpersuasive. Determinations of witness
credibility rest firmly with the jury. United States v. Spight, 817 F.3d 1099, 1102 (8th Cir. 2016).
Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, Jessica Kirchoffner and Alicia Longtin both
testified that Britton provided them with methamphetamine and heroin for further distribution. The
jury received, among other things, a screenshot of a Facebook message from Longtin letting others
know she had drugs for sale. The jury also heard testimony that the February 26, 2020 drug deal
between Britton and Kirchoffner was for one pound of methamphetamine and that, according to
Case 3:20-cr-00147-PDW Document 130 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 3

3
law enforcement, this is a dealer quantity of meth and not personal use quantity. All of this
evidence, 	and 	more, 	supports 	Britton 	supplied 	at 	least 	some 	of 	the 	witnesses 	with
methamphetamine or heroin for further distribution. Considered as a whole, the evidence sufficed
to sustain convictions for both charges. Thus, Britton is not entitled to judgment of acquittal.
A new trial is not warranted either. A district court may “grant a new trial if the interest of
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). “Motions for new trial based on the sufficiency of
the evidence are generally disfavored . . . and unless the district court ultimately determines that a
miscarriage of justice will occur, the jury’s verdict must be allowed to stand.” United States v.
Aguilera, 625 F.3d 482, 487 (8th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). The jury had an adequate opportunity
to assess the evidence and reached a reasonable result. 	Having independently reviewed the
evidence, the Court rejects the notion that a miscarriage of justice will ensue absent a new trial.
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed the record, the parties’ filings, and the relevant legal authority.
For the reasons above, Britton’s motion for judgment of acquittal and new trial (Doc. No. 127) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 1st day of June, 2022.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:20-cr-00147-PDW Document 130 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 3