Also known as: motion for judgment of acquittal · motions for judgment of acquittal · motion for acquittal · Rule 29 motion · MJOA
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural mechanism available to a criminal defendant after the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence. The court must enter a judgment of acquittal on any offense for which the prosecution's evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction when viewed in the light most favorable to the government. The motion protects defendants from jury verdicts unsupported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt on every element.
Maria Lopez stood trial for healthcare fraud. The government presented only a few disputed Medicare claims and a former subordinate who admitted confusion about billing rules and could not link any intentional scheme to Maria. At the close of the government's case Maria moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court granted the motion because no rational juror could find fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt on that record.
A defendant posted messages urging harm to a named individual. After the government rested the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court reviewed the entire record and found no evidence that the posts constituted a solicitation. It entered the acquittal because the evidence failed to support either element of the charged offense.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A defendant stood trial for wire fraud. After the government rested the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court reviewed the record and found the evidence failed to show any knowing false statement. It granted the motion because no rational juror could find every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
A defendant stood trial for drug distribution. After the government rested the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court examined whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the record did not permit such a finding the motion was granted.
After a guilty verdict the defendant renewed a motion for judgment of acquittal. The court assessed the evidence under the same standard applied at the close of the government's case. Finding the proof insufficient it set aside the verdict and entered an acquittal.
A defendant stood trial for robbery. After the government rested the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal. The court evaluated whether the prosecution's evidence met the constitutional sufficiency threshold. Finding it did not the court granted the motion and entered judgment for the defendant.
A defendant may move after the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence. The court must grant the motion if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Supporting sources
The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and asks whether any rational juror could find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the answer is no the court must enter an acquittal.
Supporting sources
Yes. An acquittal based on insufficient evidence is a final determination on the merits that precludes a second prosecution for the same offense under double jeopardy principles.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule expressly permits the court to consider evidentiary sufficiency on its own even without a defense motion.
Supporting sources
…the incident that he wanted to shoot police officers. At the close of the State’s evidence, the trial court denied Clark’s motion for judgment of acquittal for failure to prove intent to kill a law enforcement officer or knowledge that Officer Moritz was a law enforcement officer. In presenting the defense case, Clark claimed mental illness,…