The following excerpt is from United States v. Pauling, 924 F.3d 649 (2nd Cir. 2019):
A defendant challenging a jury's guilty verdict "bears a heavy burden." United States v. Martoma , 894 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is because, "[i]n evaluating a sufficiency challenge, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government's favor, and deferring to the jury's assessment of witness credibility and its assessment of the weight of the evidence. " Id. (quoting Coplan , 703 F.3d at 62 ). This deferential standard of review is "especially important when reviewing a conviction of conspiracy ... because a conspiracy by its very nature is a secretive operation, and it is a rare case where all aspects of a conspiracy can be laid bare in court with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel." United States v. Pitre , 960 F.2d 1112, 1121 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.