United States v. Reddest

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing conviction for penetration of the genital opening where testimony only established that defendant touched the outside of the victim’s genitalia
• refusing to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to show “intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person” because it contradicted the indictment’s allegations and the submitted jury instructions
• noting that there is “no meaningful distinction between the de novo standard used to review the sufficiency of the evidence . . . and the de novo standard used to review the district court’s ruling on a defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal”
• “[C]redibility determinations and the weighing of conflicting evidence are committed to the jury . . . . [T]he jury’s credibility determinations are virtually unreviewable on appeal.”
• there is “no meaningful distinction between the de novo standard used to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict and the de novo standard used to review the district court’s ruling on a defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).