## Facts

- Police in Sioux City, Iowa, investigated a report of marijuana growing outside a shared residence where Erick Arias Campos lived.
- Campos admitted the marijuana was his and gave written and verbal consent to search the residence.
- In Campos’s bedroom, officers found a box near his bed containing 50.6 grams of methamphetamine, a .38-caliber handgun, a loaded ammunition clip, a box of .38-caliber rounds, and multiple false identification documents.
- Officers found no typical drug-user paraphernalia in the residence, but did find a butane lighter near the methamphetamine and an empty pen casing elsewhere that later tested positive for methamphetamine residue.
- The government presented evidence that 50.6 grams was far above typical personal-use amounts and consistent with distribution.
- Campos contended he was a heavy user who bought the methamphetamine cheaply for personal use; a defense witness described observing preparation for ingestion but did not see actual use.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 by granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and risked a miscarriage of justice.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial under Rule 33.
- The court reversed the new-trial order, reinstated the jury’s conviction for possession with intent to distribute, and remanded for sentencing.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may grant a new trial under Rule 33 “if the interests of justice so require,” and may weigh evidence and assess credibility more broadly than on a Rule 29 sufficiency motion.
- Relief based on the weight of the evidence is disfavored and should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
- A new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds is appropriate only in exceptional cases where the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict and letting the verdict stand would result in a miscarriage of justice.
- Appellate review of a Rule 33 ruling is for abuse of discretion; discretion is broad but not unlimited and does not permit setting aside a verdict absent the required heavy preponderance against it.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the quantity of methamphetamine and the surrounding circumstances—particularly its proximity to a firearm, ammunition, and false identification documents—provided strong circumstantial proof of intent to distribute, making the case non-exceptional under Rule 33 and requiring reinstatement of the jury’s verdict.


United States v. Campos, 306 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2002)