Brown v. Konteh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under the AEDPA, habeas petitioners must penetrate “two layers of deference to groups who might view facts differently” — the factfinder at trial and the state court on appellate review
• explaining that a reviewing court does “not reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury”
• providing that on an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, “we do not . . . re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses[] or substitute our judgment for that of the jury”
• providing that on an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, all facts are construed in favor of the prosecution and the question is whether any rational juror would have voted to convict
• explaining that when addressing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the court does “not reweigh the evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury”
• reviewing court may not “reweigh the evidence, reevaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).