This recent post discussed how newly engaged defense counsel in U.S. v. Hobson made a filing seeking leave to file a reply in support of Hobson’s pending motion for a judgment of acquittal citing a June Supreme Court decision – Hunter v. U.S. – and how it “bears directly on how this case was litigated.”
As discussed here, in February Charles Hunter Hobson (who served in a variety of roles at Corsa Coal from 2013 to 2018) was found guilty by a jury for various Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and related offenses in connection with an Egyptian bribery scheme. As highlighted here, the “foreign official” jury instruction in the Hobson case was flawed and Hobson’s motion for acquittal (filed on April 6th) on a variety of issues remains outstanding.
The DOJ’s Response in Opposition to Hobson’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply In Support of his Rule 29 Motion states in summary fashion:
“The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Response in Opposition to Defendant Charles Hunter Hobson’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Defendant’s Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. Defendant does not even attempt to demonstrate the “excusable neglect” that is required under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, and moreover, Defendant’s proposed “reply” is not, in fact, a reply at all.
Defendant’s proposed filing would further inject new arguments that do not address the sole focus of Rule 29: the sufficiency of the government’s evidence at trial. Instead, Defendant improperly attempts to use a Rule 29 reply to raise matters of “intervening law” that are appropriately considered, if at all, on appeal. Notwithstanding the procedural impropriety of Defendant’s motion, even a cursory read of Defendant’s “new” caselaw, Hunter v. United States, demonstrates that it addressed appellate waivers in plea agreements—which are irrelevant here. 146 S. Ct. 1702 (2026). Further, the Hunter decision announced no new rule, principle, or argument that was previously unavailable in the Third Circuit, and in fact the Supreme Court upheld what has been the Third Circuit’s approach to appellate waivers for more than 25 years.
Defendant’s Motion should be denied for a catalogue of reasons, and Defendant can pursue his Hunter-based arguments, if appropriate, on appeal. A Rule 29 reply is not the vehicle to do so. […] Defendant’s motion is improper and without merit; it should be denied.”
