United States v. Nevils

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence must be sufficient to allow any rational trier of fact to convict
• stating that where jury was entitled to make credibility determination, court must assume it did so in a way that supports their verdict
• holding that, “when faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences a reviewing court must presume . . . that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution”
• noting that a reviewing court “must presume—even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved any [conflicting inferences] in favor of the prosecution” (quotation omitted)
• overruling precedents that “strayed from the test established in Jackson, and made ‘plausible’ .exculpatory constructions” of the evidence
• requiring the defendant to “point[] to evidence so supportive of innocence that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).