United States v. Richard Caraballo-Rodriguez

How courts have described this case

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

• cautioning that courts should not “usurp the role of the jury” unless the verdict falls “below the threshold of bare rationality”
• reversing “the jury’s conclusion simply because another inference is possible—or even equally plausible—is inconsistent with the proper inquiry for review of sufficiency of the evidence challenges”
• “Reversing the jury’s conclusion simply because another inference is possible—or even equally plausible—is inconsistent with the proper inquiry for review of sufficiency of the evidence challenges[.]”
• when reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government
• “Circumstantial inferences drawn from the evidence must bear a logical or convincing connection to established fact.” (internal quotations omitted)
• “It is up to the jury—not the district court judge or our Court—to examine the evidence and draw inferences.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).