How have courts treated a motion for a new trial under section 1181, subdivision 6?

By contrast, on a motion for new trial under section 1181, subdivision 6, "[t]he court extends no evidentiary deference . . . . Instead, it independently examines all the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, who sits, in effect, as a '13th juror.' [Citations.] If the court is not convinced that the charges have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it may rule that the jury's verdict is 'contrary to [the] . . . evidence.' [Citations.] In doing so, the judge acts as a 13th juror who is a 'holdout' for acquittal." (Porter v. Superior Court, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 133.)