Is there any case law where a defendant has been convicted of a drug-fuelled murder and convicted of the crime because the prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence?

Nor are we faced with the type of problem found in United States v. Westerdahl, 945 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir.1991), where the government relied heavily on circumstantial evidence provided by the testimony of immunized and cooperating witnesses, yet refused to immunize a defense witness whose testimony would have contradicted such evidence. Id. at 1087. Here, the government's evidence arsenal included Rooney's detailed confession and the fact that he was caught disposing of drugs.

We find nothing that calls into question the process Rooney received or the fairness of his trial.