What is sufficient to support a conviction if any rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt?
The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Cuellar-Gallardo, 983 F.2d 1078 (9th Cir. 1993):
"The evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if any rational juror, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 F.2d 1375, 1386 (9th Cir.1991). "The relevant inquiry is not whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis except guilt, but whether the jury could reasonably arrive at its verdict." United States v. Mares, 940 F.2d 455, 458 (9th Cir.1991).
1. Conspiracy
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
