Three types of post-conviction proceedings will be examined in this chapter: 1) motions made in the trial court after a conviction, 2) direct appellate review of convictions, and 3) collateral attacks on convictions.
A defendant may move during trial or after a verdict is returned for an acquittal on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 indicates the opportunities available to a defendant to make and repeat such a motion. The same legal standard is used in judging post-verdict as mid-trial motions. Courts have wisely adopted the general rule that a guilty verdict can only stand if there is sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of all necessary elements of the government's case.3 See United States v. Ramirez, 362 F.3d 521 (8th Cir. 2004) ("While the evidence need not preclude every outcome other than guilty, we consider whether it would be sufficient to convince a reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt."). After In re Winship, discussE-d in Chapter 10, this standard of review is probably required by :.he Constitution. When the burden of persuasion as to a defense is placed upon the defendant, a guilty verdict will be set aside if no reasonablein,·y could have rejected the defendant's evidence, when measured und!.>,;.!1e appropriate standard of proof. For example, if a defendant bear rhe burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence, a j•:!·y verdict of guilty will be set aside if the defendant's evidence is so st,.:Jng that any reasonable jury would have found the proof of insanity to be preponderant.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict rendered and accept all reasonable inferences which tend to support the jury verdict. United States v. Espino, 317 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir.2003). While the evidence need not preclude every outcome other than guilty, we consider whether it would be sufficient to convince a reasonable jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Henderson-Durand, 985 F.2d 970, 975 (8th Cir.1993). This court will reverse for insufficient evidence only if no reasonable jury could have found Ramirez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Robbins, 21 F.3d 297, 298-99 (8th Cir.1994). This standard applies even when the conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. United States v. Davis, 103 F.3d 660, 667 (8th Cir.1996)…
This court will reverse a district court's denial of a motion for new trial if the district court abused its discretion. United States v. Campos, 306 F.3d 577, 579 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Espinosa, 300 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir.2002). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, the district court may grant a motion for a new trial "if the interests of justice so require."
If, "despite the abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred, [the district court] may set aside the verdict, grant a new trial, and submit the issues for determination by another jury." United States v. Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313, 1319 (8th Cir.1980). In considering the motion for a new trial alleging the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, the "court need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, but may instead weigh the evidence and evaluate for itself the credibility of the witnesses." United States v. Lacey, 219 F.3d 779, 783-84 (8th Cir.2000). "Motions for new trials based on the weight of the evidence are generally disfavored." Campos, 306 F.3d at 579. The district court's authority to grant a new trial should be exercised "sparingly and with caution." Lincoln, 630 F.2d at 1319.
A post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal puts in issue the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. It is in this respect precisely like an appeal from a judgment of conviction on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the verdict on which the judgment was entered. The court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, whether it be the trial or appellate court, must apply familiar principles. It is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor from the evidence. The verdict may be based in whole or in part on circumstantial evidence. The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; it is sufficient if there is substantial evidence justifying an inference of guilt as found irrespective of any countervailing 1317*1317 testimony that may have been introduced. If so, the issue of guilt or innocence has been properly submitted to the jury for its determination, and the motion for judgment of acquittal is properly denied. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Knife, 592 F.2d 472, 475 (8th Cir. 1979); United States v. Robinson, 71 F.Supp. 9, 10 (D.D.C.1947). We next review the evidence presented at the trial of this case with these principles in mind.,
When a motion for new trial is made on the ground that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, the issues are far different from those raised by a motion for judgment of acquittal. The question is not whether the defendant should be acquitted outright, but only whether he should have a new trial. The district court need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict; it may weigh the evidence and in so doing evaluate for itself the credibility of the witnesses. If the court concludes that, despite the abstract sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the evidence preponderates sufficiently heavily against the verdict that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it may set aside the verdict, grant a new trial, and submit the issues for determination by another jury. This authority should be exercised sparingly and with caution; nevertheless, the trial court has wide discretion in deciding whether to grant a new trial in the interest of justice. Corresponding to the district court's broad discretion is the limited scope of our review: we will reverse the district court's ruling on the motion for new trial only if we find that ruling to be a clear and manifest abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bohn, 508 F.2d 1145, 1150 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Robinson, supra, 71 F.Supp. at 10-11; 2 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, § 553 at 486-87.
The standard for review by a trial judge upon a motion for acquittal is well-stated by the court in United States v. Mariani, 725 F.2d 862 (2d
When a defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal, the Court
must determine whether upon the evidence, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact, a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If [it] concludes that upon the evidence there must be such a doubt in a reasonable mind, [it] must grant the motion; or, to state it another way, if there is no evidence upon which a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the motion must be granted. If [it] concludes that either of the two results, a reasonable doubt or no reasonable doubt, is fairly possible, [it] must let the jury decide the matter. (footnotes omitted).
United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir.1972) (quoting Curley v. United States, 160 F.2d 229, 232-33 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1511, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947)). Accord United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95, 104-05 (2d Cir.1980). See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19 n. 11, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788 n. 11, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). A reasonable mind must be able to conclude guilt on each and every element of the charged offense. See United States v. Macklin, 671 F.2d 60, 65 (2d Cir.1982) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 323 (1970)). However, "all reasonable inferences are to be resolved in favor of the prosecution and the trial court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government with respect to each element of the offense." United States v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. Artuso, 618 F.2d 192, 195 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 861, 101 S.Ct. 164, 66 L.Ed.2d 77 (1980)). The evidence is to be viewed "not in isolation but in conjunction." United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1121 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1028, 90 S.Ct. 1276, 25 L.Ed.2d 539 (1970). These strict rules are necessary to avoid judicial usurpation of the jury function. The court should not substitute its own determination of the credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn for that of the jury. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d at 41 (citations omitted).
(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserve
(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.
(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.
(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.
(3) No Prior Motion Required. A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge.
(d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.
(1) Motion for a New Trial. If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. The court must specify the reasons for that determination.
(2) Finality. The court's order conditionally granting a motion for a new trial does not affect the finality of the judgment of acquittal.
(3) Appeal.
(A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise.
(B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs.
Held: The District Court had no authority to grant petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal filed one day outside the Rule 29(c) time limit. Pp. 419-43
(a) The Rules do not permit the granting of an untimely postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal. Rule 29(c)'s text, when read with Rule 45(b)'s statement that "the court may not extend the time for taking any action under Rul[e] 29 . . . except to the extent and under the conditions stated in [the Rule]," is plain and unambiguous: If, as in this case, a guilty verdict is returned, a motion for judgment of acquittal must be filed either within seven days of the jury's discharge or within an extended period fixed by the court during that 7-day period. Furthermore, in light of Rule 29(c)'s clarity, petitioner cannot rely either on Rule 2, which requires that ambiguous Rules "be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay," or on Rule 57, which allows district courts discretion to regulate practice when there is no controlling law. Pp. 419-425.
(b) This Court rejects petitioner's invocation of courts' "inherent supervisory power" as alternative authority for the District Court's action. Whatever the scope of federal courts' inherent power to formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress, it does not include the power to develop rules that circumvent or conflict with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 417*417 See, e. g., Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U. S. 250, 254-255. Whether the District Court's action is described as the granting of an untimely motion, or the sua sponte entry of a judgment of acquittal, it contradicted Rule 29(c)'s plain language and effectively annulled the 7-day filing limit. The cautionary principle that the Court will not lightly assume that the Rules mean to depart from established principles does not apply in this case, because prior to the enactment of Rule 29, there was no long, unquestioned power of federal district courts to acquit for insufficient evidence sua sponte, after return of a guilty verdict. Pp. 425-428.
(c) The Court also rejects petitioner's remaining arguments: (1) that the District Court had power to order acquittal in this case under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651, through the writ of coram nobis; (2) that the failure to allow the District Court to order acquittal would violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause; and (3) that prohibiting a district court from granting an acquittal motion filed only one day late will lead to needless appeals and habeas corpus proceedings. Pp. 428-430.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE KENNEDY joins, dissenting.
As long as a federal court retains jurisdiction over a criminal case, it has the authority to ensure that no conviction is entered unless the prosecutor has proved the defendant's guilt. The exercise of the court's inherent power to set 437*437 aside a jury verdict unsupported by evidence is not contingent on the filing of a timely motion by the defendant. The question in this case, therefore, is not whether Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the court to grant an untimely motion for judgment of acquittal; I agree with the Court that it does not. Rather, the question is whether that Rule withdraws the court's pre-existing authority to refrain from entering judgment of conviction against a defendant whom it knows to be legally innocent..
District courts have long exercised their inherent power to direct an acquittal sua sponte when the prosecution fails to prove its case at the close of evidence. See Wiborg v. United States, 163 U. S. 632, 659 (1896); Cady v. United States, 293 F. 829 (CADC 1923); Nosowitz v. United States, 282 F. 575, 578 (CA2 1922).[3] They have also long exercised 440*440 their inherent power to set aside a jury verdict for insufficiency of the evidence sua sponte. See United States v. Harding, 26 F. Cas. 131, 136 (No. 15,301) (ED Pa. 1846); United States v. Fullerton, 25 F. Cas. 1225 (No. 15,176) (SDNY 1870); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Law of the United States 669 (1846) ("Where, however, evidence is not sufficient in law to authorize a verdict, a new trial will be granted, even though no objection be made at the trial"); id., at 643(s) (explaining that the judge reserves "it to himself, if there be an improper conviction, to arrest the judgment or set aside the verdict"); Charles v. State, 4 Port. 107, 109-110 (Ala. 1836).[4]
We agree with the dissent that the petitions for writs of habeas corpus, coram nobis and audita querela are unavailable for the reasons stated by the dissenting opinion. Specifically, for the purposes of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, appellant does not satisfy the requirement that he must be in custody or that he is otherwise deprived of his liberty. (People v. Villa (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1063, 1072 [90 Cal.Rptr.3d 344, 202 P.3d 427].) And, as noted in the dissent, the writ of error coram nobis is not available for the fundamental reason that this writ applies "where a fact unknown to the parties and the court existed at the time of judgment that, if known, would have prevented rendition of the judgment." (People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1093 [90 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, 202 P.3d 436].) The matter at hand is an error of law, which is not cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding. (Ibid.) We also agree with the dissent that it is questionable that audita querela is available in this case but we need not address this issue. Under the facts and circumstances of this 454*454 case, a motion to vacate the judgment is the proper procedural vehicle to raise the defect of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction and determine, based on that evidence and any reasonable inferences from it, whether any rational fact finder could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. - in O'CONNOR v. State, 2013
If the evidence supports conflicting inferences, the reviewing court must presume "that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution," and the court must "defer to that resolution." - in Darty v. Soto, 2016
This standard "gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." in Freeman v. State, 2004
It is axiomatic that a conviction upon a charge not made or upon a charge not tried constitutes a denial of due process. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U. S. 196, 201; Presnell v. Georgia, 439 U. S. 14. These standards no more than reflect a broader premise that has never been doubted in our constitutional system: that a person cannot incur the loss of liberty for an offense without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend. E. g., Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 416-420. Cf. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 377-379. A meaningful opportunity to defend, if not the right to a trial itself, presumes as well that a total want of evidence to support a charge will conclude the case in favor of the accused. Accordingly, we held in the Thompson case that a conviction based upon a record wholly devoid of any relevant evidence of a crucial element of the offense charged is constitutionally infirm. See also Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U. S. 478; Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39; Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111; Douglas v. Buder, 412 U. S. 430. The "no evidence" doctrine of Thompson v. Louisville thus secures to an accused the most elemental of due process rights: freedom from a wholly arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The Court in Thompson explicitly stated that the due process right at issue did not concern a question of evidentiary "sufficiency." 362 U. S., at 199. The right established in In re Winship, however, clearly stands on a different footing. Winship involved an adjudication of juvenile delinquency made by a judge under a state statute providing that the prosecution must prove the conduct charged as delinquent— which in Winship would have been a criminal offense if engaged in by an adult—by a preponderance of the evidence. 315*315 Applying that standard, the judge was satisfied that the juvenile was "guilty," but he noted that the result might well have been different under a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, the record in Winship was not totally devoid of evidence of guilt.
The constitutional problem addressed in Winship was thus distinct from the stark problem of arbitrariness presented in Thompson v. Louisville. In Winship, the Court held for the first time that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant in a criminal case against conviction "except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." 397 U. S., at 364. In so holding, the Court emphasized that proof beyond a reasonable doubt has traditionally been regarded as the decisive difference between criminal culpability and civil liability. Id., at 358-362. See Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174; Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790; 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2495, pp. 307-308 (3d ed. 1940). Cf. Woodby v. INS, 385 U. S. 276, 285. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, said the Court, "plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure," because it operates to give "concrete substance" to the presumption of innocence, to ensure against unjust convictions, and to reduce the risk of factual error in a criminal proceeding. 397 U. S., at 363. At the same time, by impressing upon the factfinder the need to reach a subjective state of near certitude of the guilt of the accused, the standard symbolizes the significance that our society attaches to the criminal sanction and thus to liberty itself. Id., at 372 (Harlan, J., concurring).
The constitutional standard recognized in the Winship case was expressly phrased as one that protects an accused against a conviction except on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt . . . ." In subsequent cases discussing the reasonable-doubt standard, we have never departed from this definition of the rule or from 316*316 the Winship understanding of the central purposes it serves. See, e. g., Ivan V. v. City of New York, 407 U. S. 203, 204; Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 486-487; Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684; Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197; Cool v. United States, 409 U. S. 100, 104. In short, Winship presupposes as an essential of the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that no person shall be made to suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof—defined as evidence necessary to convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense…
The Winship doctrine requires more than simply a trial 317*317 ritual. A doctrine establishing so fundamental a substantive constitutional standard must also require that the factfinder will rationally apply that standard to the facts in evidence.[8] A "reasonable doubt," at a minimum, is one based upon "reason."[9] Yet a properly instructed jury may occasionally convict even when it can be said that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the same may be said of a trial judge sitting as a jury. In a federal trial, such an occurrence has traditionally been deemed to require reversal of the conviction. Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 80; Bronston v. United States, 409 U. S. 352. See also, e. g., Curley v. United States, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 389, 392-393, 160 F. 2d 229, 232-233.[10] Under Winship, which established 318*318 proof beyond a reasonable doubt as an essential of Fourteenth Amendment due process, it follows that when such a conviction occurs in a state trial, it cannot constitutionally stand.
Instead, a federal court on habeas review faced with a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim must determine "whether, after 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." - in Tucker v. Cate, 2012
"A reviewing court faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution." - in US v. Harris, 1997
We rejected the principle of absolute deference in our landmark decision in Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443 (1953). There, we held that a state-court judgment of conviction "is not res judicata " on federal habeas with respect to federal constitutional claims, id., at 458, even if the state court has rejected all such claims after a full and fair hearing. Instead, we held, a district court must determine whether the state-court adjudication "has resulted in a satisfactory conclusion." Id., at 463. We had no occasion to explore in detail the question whether a "satisfactory" conclusion was one that the habeas court considered correct, as opposed to merely reasonable, because we concluded that the constitutional claims advanced in Brown itself would fail even if the state courts' rejection of them were reconsidered de novo. See id., at 465-476. Nonetheless, we indicated that the federal courts enjoy at least the discretion to take into consideration the fact that a state court has previously rejected the federal claims asserted on habeas. See id., at 465 ("As the state and federal courts have the same responsibilities to protect persons from violation of their constitutional rights, we conclude that a federal district court may decline, without a rehearing of the facts, to award a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner where the legality of such detention has been 288*288 determined, on the facts presented, by the highest state court with jurisdiction").[4]..
In subsequent cases, we repeatedly reaffirmed Brown `s teaching that mixed constitutional questions are "open to review on collateral attack," Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335, 342 (1980), without ever explicitly considering whether that "review" should be de novo or deferential. In some of these cases, we would have denied habeas relief even under de novo review, see, e. g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 698 (1984) (facts make it "clear" that habeas petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 201 (1972) (facts disclose "no substantial likelihood" that habeas petitioner was subjected to unreliable pretrial lineup); in others, we would have awarded habeas relief even under deferential review, see, e. g., Brewer v. Williams, 430 U. S. 387, 405 (1977) (facts provide "no reasonable basis" for finding valid waiver of right to counsel); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 725 (1961) (facts show "clear and convincing" evidence of biased jury); and in yet others, we remanded for application of a proper legal rule without addressing that standard of review question, see, e. g., Cuyler, supra, at 342, 350. Nonetheless, because these cases never qualified our early citation of Brown for the proposition that a federal habeas court must reexamine mixed constitutional questions "independently," Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 318 (1963) (dictum), we have gradually come to treat as settled the rule that mixed constitutional questions are "subject to plenary federal review" on habeas, Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 112 (1985).[6]
.. Despite our apparent adherence to a standard of de novo habeas review with respect to mixed constitutional questions, we have implicitly questioned that standard, at least with respect to pure legal questions, in our recent retroactivity precedents. In Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 313-314 (1989), a majority of this Court endorsed the retroactivity analysis advanced by Justice O'Connor for a plurality in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989). Under Teague, a habeas petitioner generally cannot benefit from a new rule of criminal procedure announced after his conviction has become final on direct appeal. See id., at 305-310 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). Teague defined a "new" rule as one that was "not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final." Id., at 301 (emphasis in original). In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 415 (1990), we explained that the definition includes all rules "susceptible to debate among reasonable minds." Thus, if a state court has reasonably rejected the legal claim asserted by a habeas petitioner under existing law, then the claim seeks the benefit of a "new" rule under Butler, and is therefore not cognizable on habeas under Teague. In other words, a federal habeas court "must defer to the state court's decision rejecting the claim unless that decision is patently unreasonable." Butler, supra, at 422 (Brennan, J., dissenting).[8]
292*292 Teague was premised on the view that retroactivity questions in habeas corpus proceedings must take account of the nature and function of the writ, which we described as "`a collateral remedy . . . not designed as a substitute for direct review.' " 489 U. S., at 306 (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (quoting Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667, 682-683 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part)) (emphasis in Mackey ). Justice Stevens reasoned similarly in Jackson, where he stressed that habeas corpus "is not intended as a substitute for appeal, nor as a device for reviewing the merits of guilt determinations at criminal trials," but only "to guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems." 443 U. S., at 332, n. 5 (opinion concurring in judgment); see also Greer v. Miller, 483 U. S. 756, 768-769 (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). Indeed, the notion that different standards should apply on direct and collateral review runs throughout our recent habeas jurisprudence. We have said, for example, that new rules always have retroactive application to 293*293 criminal cases pending on direct review, see Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314, 320-328 (1987), but that they generally do not have retroactive application to criminal cases pending on habeas, see Teague, supra, at 305-310 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). We have held that the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel on a first direct appeal, see, e. g., Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353, 355-358 (1963), but that it guarantees no right to counsel on habeas, see, e. g., Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U. S. 551, 555 (1987). On direct review, we have announced and enforced the rule that state courts must exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 654-660 (1961). We have also held, however, that claims under Mapp are not cognizable on habeas as long as the state courts have provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate them at trial or on direct review. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 489— 496 (1976).
These differences simply reflect the fact that habeas review "entails significant costs." Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 126 (1982). Among other things, "`[i]t disturbs the State's significant interest in repose for concluded litigation, denies society the right to punish some admitted offenders, and intrudes on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises of federal judicial authority.' " Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U. S. 195, 210 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (quoting Harris v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 282 (1989) (Kennedy, J., dissenting)). In various contexts, we have emphasized that these costs, as well as the countervailing benefits, must be taken into consideration in defining the scope of the writ. See, e. g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 738-739 (1991) (procedural default); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 490-493 (1991) (abuse of the writ); Teague, supra, at 308-310 (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (retroactivity); Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S., at 444-455 (opinion of Powell, J.) (successive petitions); Stone v. Powell, supra, at 491-492, n. 31 (cognizability of particular claims).
294*294 In light of these principles, petitioners ask that we reconsider our statement in Miller v. Fenton that mixed constitutional questions are "subject to plenary federal review" on habeas, 474 U. S., at 112. By its terms, Teague itself is not directly controlling, because West sought federal habeas relief under Jackson, which was decided a year before his conviction became final on direct review. Nonetheless, petitioners contend, the logic of Teague makes our statement in Miller untenable. Petitioners argue that if deferential review for reasonableness strikes an appropriate balance with respect to purely legal claims, then it must strike an appropriate balance with respect to mixed questions as well. Moreover, they note that under the habeas statute itself, a state-court determination of a purely factual question must be "presumed correct," and can be overcome only by "convincing evidence," unless one of eight statutorily enumerated exceptions is present. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). It makes no sense, petitioners assert, for a habeas court generally to review factual determinations and legal determinations deferentially, but to review applications of law to fact de novo. Finally, petitioners find the prospect of deferential review for mixed questions at least implicit in our recent statement that Teague concerns are fully implicated "by the application of an old rule in a manner that was not dictated by precedent." Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 228 (1992) (emphasis added). For these reasons, petitioners invite us to reaffirm that a habeas judge need not—and indeed may not—"shut his eyes" entirely to state-court applications of law to fact. Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S., at 508 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.). West develops two principal counterarguments: first, that Congress implicitly codified a de novo standard with respect to mixed constitutional questions when it amended the habeas statute in 1966; and second, that 295*295 de novo federal review is necessary to vindicate federal constitutional rights.[9]
We need not decide such far-reaching issues in this case. As in both Brown and Jackson, the claim advanced by the habeas petitioner must fail even assuming that the state court's rejection of it should be reconsidered de novo. Whatever the appropriate standard of review, we conclude that there was more than enough evidence to support West's conviction.
A reviewing court faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution. - in State v. Ramos, 2016
"[I] t is the responsibility of the jury—not the court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial. A reviewing court may set aside the jury's verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence only if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the jury."- in Nugent v. PAHEL, 2013
“In federal habeas proceedings, "Jackson claims... are subject to two layers of judicial deference": deference to the "responsibility of the jury... to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial," and deference under the AEDPA's standards to the state reviewing court's evidence-sufficiency determination.” - in Douglas v. Westbrooks, 2018
“And second, on habeas review, "a federal court may not overturn a state court decision rejecting a sufficiency of the evidence challenge simply because the federal court disagrees with the state court. The federal court instead may do so only if the state court decision was `objectively unreasonable.'" - in Dison v. Thaler, 2013
Where a state court adjudicated a petitioner's federal claim on the merits, a federal court "has no authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the [state c] ourt's decision `was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,'or `was based on an unreasonable … - in Graham v. NOGAN, 2020
To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a habeas petitioner must demonstrate that the prosecutor's conduct or remarks "so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." - in COCKREAM v. Scutt, 2013
Respondent no longer argues it was proper for the District Court to admit the Mueller Report for the purpose of evaluating his Jackson claim, Brief for Respondent 35, and concedes the "purpose of a Jackson analysis is to determine whether the jury acted in a rational manner in returning a guilty verdict based on the evidence before it, not whether improper evidence violated due process," id., at 2. There has been no suggestion that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to convict unless some of it was excluded. Respondent's concession thus disposes of his Jackson claim. The concession is also clearly correct. An "appellate court's reversal for insufficiency of the evidence is in effect a determination that the government's case against the defendant was so lacking that the trial court should have entered a judgment of acquittal." Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 39, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Because reversal for insufficiency of the evidence is equivalent to a judgment of acquittal, such a reversal bars a retrial. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978). To "make the analogy complete" between a reversal for insufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's granting a judgment of acquittal, Lockhart, 488 U.S., at 42, 109 S.Ct. 285, "a reviewing court must consider all of the evidence admitted by the trial court," regardless of whether that evidence was admitted erroneously, id., at 41, 109 S.Ct. 285.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice SCALIA joins, concurring.
I join the per curiam because it correctly holds that the Ninth Circuit erred in departing from Jackson's mandate that a federal habeas court confine its sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis to "the evidence adduced at trial" and, specifically, to "`all of the evidence admitted by the trial court.'" Ante, at 672 (quoting Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 41, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988)); see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). I write separately because I disagree with the Court's decision to complicate its analysis with an extensive discussion of the Mueller Report. See ante, at 670-73. Defense counsel commissioned that report 11 years after respondent's 676*676 trial. See ante, at 667. Accordingly, the report's attacks on the State's DNA testimony were not part of the trial evidence and have no place in the Jackson inquiry. See Jackson, supra, at 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781; Lockhart, supra, at 40-42, 109 S.Ct. 285. That is all we need or should say about the report in deciding this case.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld petitioner's conviction, rejecting the argument that the general verdict could not stand because it left in doubt whether the jury had convicted her of conspiring to defraud the IRS, for which there was sufficient proof, or of conspiring to defraud the DEA, for which (as the Government concedes) there was not. United States v. Beverly, 913 F. 2d 337 (1990). We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 1082 (1991)
And as this Court has observed:
"In criminal cases, the general rule, as stated by Lord Mansfield before the Declaration of Independence, is `that if there is any one count to support the verdict, it shall stand good, notwithstanding all the rest are bad.' And it is settled law in this court, and in this country generally, that in any criminal case a general verdict and judgment on an indictment or information containing several counts cannot be reversed on error, if any one of the counts is good and warrants the judgment, because, 50*50 in the absence of anything in the record to show the contrary, the presumption of law is that the court awarded sentence on the good count only." Claassen v. United States, 142 U. S. 140, 146 (1891) (quoting Peake v. Oldham, 1 Cowper 275, 276, 98 Eng. Rep. 1083 (K. B. 1775)) (other citations omitted).
See also Snyder v. United States, 112 U. S. 216, 217 (1884); Clifton v. United States, 4 How. 242, 250 (1846); 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure § 1015, p. 631 (2d ed. 1872).
This common-law rule applied in a variety of contexts. It validated general verdicts returned on multicount indictments where some of the counts were legally defective ("bad"), see, e. g., Clifton, supra, at 250; State v. Shelledy, 8 Iowa 477, 511 (1859); State v. Burke, 38 Me. 574, 575-576 (1854); Commonwealth v. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336, 337 (1821), and general verdicts returned on multicount indictments where some of the counts were unsupported by the evidence, see, e. g., State v. Long, 52 N. C. 24, 26 (1859); State v. Bugbee, 22 Vt. 32, 35 (1849); 1 Bishop, supra, § 1014, p. 630. It also applied to the analogous situation at issue here: a general jury verdict under a single count charging the commission of an offense by two or more means. For example, in reviewing a count charging defendants with composing, printing, and publishing a libel, Lord Ellenborough stated:..
Petitioner argues, however, that—whether as a matter of due process or by virtue of our supervisory power over federal courts—a result contrary to the earlier practice has been prescribed by our decision in Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957). Yates involved a single-count federal indictment charging a conspiracy "(1) 52*52 to advocate and teach the duty and necessity of overthrowing the Government of the United States by force and violence, and (2) to organize, as the Communist Party of the United States, a society of persons who so advocate and teach." Id. , at 300. The first of these objects (the "advocacy" charge) violated § 2(a)(1) of the Smith Act of 1940 (subsequently repealed and substantially reenacted as 18 U. S. C. § 2385), and the second of them (the "organizing" charge) violated § 2(a)(3). We found that the "organizing" object was insufficient in law, since the statutory term referred to initial formation, and the Communist Party had been "organized" in that sense at a time beyond the period of the applicable statute of limitations. 354 U. S., at 304-311. We then rejected the Government's argument that the convictions could nonetheless stand on the basis of the "advocacy" object. Our analysis made no mention of the Due Process Clause but consisted in its entirety of the following:..
"In these circumstances we think the proper rule to be applied is that which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 367-368; Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 291-292; Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1, 36, n. 45." Id., at 312…
Finally, petitioner asserts that the distinction between legal error (Yates) and insufficiency of proof (Turner) is illusory, since judgments that are not supported by the requisite minimum of proof are invalid as a matter of law —and indeed, in the criminal law field at least, are constitutionally 59*59 required to be set aside. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (1979). Insufficiency of proof, in other words, is legal error. This represents a purely semantical dispute. In one sense "legal error" includes inadequacy of evidence— namely, when the phrase is used as a term of art to designate those mistakes that it is the business of judges (in jury cases) and of appellate courts to identify and correct. In this sense "legal error" occurs when a jury, properly instructed as to the law, convicts on the basis of evidence that no reasonable person could regard as sufficient. But in another sense—a more natural and less artful sense—the term "legal error" means a mistake about the law, as opposed to a mistake concerning the weight or the factual import of the evidence. The answer to petitioner's objection is simply that we are using "legal error" in the latter sense.
That surely establishes a clear line that will separate Turner from Yates, and it happens to be a line that makes good sense. Jurors are not generally equipped to determine whether a particular theory of conviction submitted to them is contrary to law—whether, for example, the action in question is protected by the Constitution, is time barred, or fails to come within the statutory definition of the crime. When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error. Quite the opposite is true, however, when they have been left the option of relying upon a factually inadequate theory, since jurors are well equipped to analyze the evidence, see Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 157 (1968). As the Seventh Circuit has put it:
"It is one thing to negate a verdict that, while supported by evidence, may have been based on an erroneous view of the law; it is another to do so merely on the chance— remote, it seems to us—that the jury convicted on a ground that was not supported by adequate evidence when there existed alternative grounds for which the 60*60 evidence was sufficient." United States v. Townsend, 924 F. 2d 1385, 1414 (1991).