The following excerpt is from U.S.A v. Malachowski, No. 09-5342-cr (2nd Cir. 2011):
as such, he did not "possess" them at any time. We review a denial of a Rule 29 motion de novo. United States v. Amico, 486 F.3d 764, 780 (2d Cir. 2007). However, where, as here, that motion raises a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, a defendant faces a "heavy burden" because a verdict must be upheld if "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 2000).
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.