concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I accept the facts as set forth in the majority’s opinion, I feel an elaboration on the procedural history and posture of this case is necessary. The defendants were charged in a superseding information with one count of conspiracy to commit arson and mail fraud (count 1), one count of arson (count 2) and ten counts of mail fraud (counts 3-12). After the jury found the defendants guilty on all counts, the defendants filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and a motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The district court granted the motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to counts 8-12 on the ground that the mailings alleged in those counts were not made in furtherance of the scheme to defraud. The court also granted the defendants’ motion for a new trial with respect to counts 1-7 because the jury had heard testimony which was unbelievable as a matter of law. The government now appeals from the district court’s decision.
In its opinion, the majority holds that the district court abused its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion for a new trial with respect to counts 1-7 and erred in granting the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to counts 8-12. Thus, the majority reinstates the jury verdict on all twelve counts. Because I disagree with the majority’s view that the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion for a new trial as to counts 1-7, I respectfully dissent. Moreover, although I agree with the majority that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal as to counts 8-12, I do not believe the jury verdict should be reinstated on those counts. Rather, the defendants should receive a new trial on those counts.
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows the district court to grant a defendant’s motion for a new trial “in the interest of justice.” Although the rule does not define “in the interest of justice,” it is well accepted that the trial judge has broad powers to determine whether to grant a new trial. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 738 F.2d 13, 17 (1st Cir.1984); United States v. Indelicato, 611 F.2d 376, 387 (1st Cir.1979); see also 3 C. WRIGHT, Federal Practice and Procedure § 551, at 236-37 (1982) (“[T]he trial court has broad powers to grant a new trial if for any reason it concludes that the trial has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”). In recognition of the district court’s broad power to review a motion for a new trial, our court, as the majority correctly notes, cannot reverse the district court’s decision unless it amounts to an abuse of discretion. United States v. Goodwin, 770 F.2d 631, 639 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1084, 106 S.Ct. 858, 88 L.Ed.2d 897 (1986); United States v. Nero, 733 F.2d 1197, 1202 (7th Cir.1984). Under this standard of review, the government bears a heavy burden in trying to show that the district court abused its discretion. See, e.g., Jones v. Hamelman, 869 F.2d 1023, 1027 (7th Cir.1989); United States v. Kaufmann, 803 F.2d 289, 291 (7th Cir.1986).
In this case, Judge Marshall found the testimony of one of the government’s witnesses, Robert Arens, to be “unbelievable as a matter of law.” District Court’s Memorandum Opinion at 14. Because the jury was allowed to consider the “dramatic and *474very damaging” testimony of Arens in reaching its verdict, Judge Marshall concluded that the interest of justice required a new trial for the defendants on counts 1-7. Id.
I agree with the majority that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the credibility of a witness is for the jury to decide. See United States v. Allen, 797 F.2d 1395, 1399 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 856, 107 S.Ct. 196, 93 L.Ed.2d 128 (1986); United States v. Noble, 754 F.2d 1324, 1332 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 818, 106 S.Ct. 63, 88 L.Ed.2d 51 (1985). However, courts have recognized that extraordinary circumstances do occasionally exist when the trial judge should keep the testimony of a witness from the jury because it is unbelievable as a matter of law. For example, a witness’ testimony can be considered incredible as a matter of law if it defies physical laws. See United States v. Carrasco, 830 F.2d 41, 44 (5th Cir.1987); Zollman v. Symington Wayne Corp., 438 F.2d 28, 31-32 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S, 827, 92 S.Ct. 59, 30 L.Ed.2d 55 (1971). Additionally, a court will consider testimony to be unbelievable as a matter of law if no reasonable juror could believe it. See United States v. Gutman, 725 F.2d 417, 435 (7th Cir.) (Coffey, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880, 105 S.Ct. 244, 83 L.Ed.2d 183 (1984); Holland v. Allied Structural Steel Co., 539 F.2d 476, 483 (5th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1105, 97 S.Ct. 1136, 51 L.Ed.2d 557 (1977); see also 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Wein-stein’s Evidence H 601[01], at 601-10 (1988) (“[T]he trial judge may exclude all or a part of the witness’ testimony on the ground that no one could reasonably believe the witness_”). Finally, testimony that is incredible on its face can be considered unbelievable as a matter of law. See United States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1051, 106 S.Ct. 1275, 89 L.Ed.2d 582 (1986); United States v. Blasco, 581 F.2d 681, 685 n. 7 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 966, 99 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed.2d 425 (1978). Thus, contrary to what the majority would lead one to believe, testimony can be incredible as a matter of law even if it does not “violate immutable laws of nature.”
Therefore, the precise issue before our court is whether Judge Marshall abused his discretion in granting a new trial because he found that extraordinary circumstances existed which rendered Arens’ testimony unbelievable as a matter of law. At trial, Arens testified that he worked for the defendants between October 1984 and January 1985 and that he overheard a conversation between the defendants in January 1985 which strongly suggested that they planned to torch their building. The government presented some additional testimony that helped to corroborate Arens’ claim that he worked for the defendants in January 1985. As part of their evidence, however, the defendants produced paychecks and time cards which showed that Arens worked for them in the spring of 1984 and therefore, could not possibly have heard a conversation between them in January 1985. The defendants also showed, contrary to Arens’ assertions, that no paychecks were issued to Arens in January 1985 and that he was not listed as being in his school’s work program. Indeed, the evidence presented by the defendants at trial was so overwhelming that the government concedes in its brief that the defendants repeatedly impeached Arens on the substance of his testimony and on his overall credibility. See Brief for Appellant at 29.
Whether Arens’ testimony is unbelievable as a matter of law is a close issue that Judge Marshall could have resolved either way. In reviewing this issue on appeal, I note that Judge Marshall, an experienced and conscientious trial judge, presided over both the trial and the hearing on the motion for a new trial. He observed Arens’ testimony and the jury reaction to it. In this situation, Judge Marshall was “in a much better position than we, as an appellate court, to judge the merits of the motion [for a new trial].” United States v. Draper, 762 F.2d 81, 83 (10th Cir.1985). *475Therefore, under the particular circumstances of this case, I cannot say that the government met its heavy burden of showing that Judge Marshall abused his discretion in granting the defendants’ motion for a new trial. Accordingly, I would affirm Judge Marshall’s decision to grant the defendants a new trial on counts 1-7.
In its opinion, the majority also holds that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal as to counts 8-12. In reversing the district court on this issue, the majority relies primarily on the recent Supreme Court case of Schmuck v. United States, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1443, 103 L.Ed.2d 734 (1989). Of course, the district court did not have the benefit of the Schmuck decision when it rendered its opinion in this case. Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that the district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to counts 8-12. Each of those counts adequately alleges a mailing that was at least incidental to an essential part of the scheme. See id. 109 S.Ct. at 1447; United States v. Draiman, 784 F.2d 248, 251 (7th Cir.1986). However, because I believe the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial with respect to counts 1-7, I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to reinstate the jury’s verdict on counts 8-12. Instead, I believe that in the interest of justice, the defendants should also receive a new trial on counts 8-12 because Arens’ testimony infected the entire trial.