The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Loaiza, 76 F.3d 389 (9th Cir. 1996):
Loaiza first contends that her counsel was deficient for not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence showing her intent to conspire to possess and distribute cocaine, and to possess cocaine. We disagree. Sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.