Can a rational jury find that the essential elements of the crime were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
MultiRegion, United States of America
The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Wilson, 924 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1991):
Appellants contend that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain their convictions. We review this claim by considering whether a rational jury, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, could have found the essential elements of the crime to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Marabelles, 724 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir.1984).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
Other Questions
If there is an error in the finding that a defendant is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of reasonable doubt, is that error harmless beyond reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Can a jury reasonably have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is a defendant entitled to a judgment of acquittal if no rational trier of fact found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is sufficient to support a conviction if any rational juror could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for determining that a rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for establishing that a rational trier of fact could not have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Can a rational trier of fact find that the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Can a rational juror find all the essential elements of both crimes beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for a jury to determine whether the jury has found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
