What is the test for "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a sexual assault case?

However, if the evidence is nonexistent or so meager, United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir.1999), such that it gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, then a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt, Cassese, 428 F.3d at 99. Because few events in the life of an individual are more important than a criminal conviction, we continue to consider the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement with utmost seriousness. Cassese, 428 F.3d at 102. Here, we find that the Government's evidence failed to reach that threshold, even when viewed in the light most favorable to it.

The circumstantial evidence in this case was simply too thin to warrant

[773 F.3d 452]