What is the test for overturning a jury verdict in a sexual assault case?

1. In determining whether a trial judge's conduct has deprived a defendant of a fair trial, we must "examine the entire record and attempt to determine whether the conduct of the trial has been such that the jurors have been impressed with the trial judge's partiality to one side to the point that this became a factor in the determination of the jury." United States v. Guglielmini, 384 F.2d 602, 605 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 820 (1970); see United States v. Valenti, 60 F.3d 941, 947 (2d Cir.1995). Reversal is appropriate only if the trial judge's conduct "so impressed the jury with the trial judge's partiality to the prosecution that this became a factor in determining the defendant's guilt." United States v. Pisani, 773 F.2d 397, 402 (2d Cir.1985).

After careful review of the record, we find that the trial judge's allegedly proprosecution actions did not impermissibly prejudice the defendants. Moreover, even assuming that the trial judge's actions were biased, the instructions given to the jury in this case cured any potential prejudice to the defendants. See Valenti, 60 F.3d at 947; United States v. Manko, 979 F.2d 900, 908 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2993 (1993). Thus, we find this claim to be without merit.

2. A defendant seeking to overturn a jury verdict based on insufficient evidence bears a very heavy burden. United States v. Strauss, 999 F.2d 692, 696 (2d Cir.1993). All permissible inferences, including issues of credibility, must be drawn in the government's favor. United States v. Wallace, 59 F.3d 333, 338 (2d Cir.1995). The conviction must be upheld so long as any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).