I.I. Specific Offenses

II. Sentencing Guidelines

III. Evidence

IV. Fourth Amendment

V. Fifth Amendment

VI. Sixth Amendment >>

VII. Other Constitutional Rulings

VIII. Defenses

IX. Plea & Sentencing Hearings

X. Jury Issues

XI. Probation & Supervised Release

XII. Appeal

XIII. Post-Conviction Remedies

VIII. Defenses

A. Severance of Counts/Defendants
B. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12 - Pretrial Motions
C. Necessity/Duress
D. Statute of Limitations
E. Venue
F. Privileges
G. Estoppel Defenses
H. Sufficiency of Evidence Generally
I. Mistrial
J. Speedy Trial Act/IAD
K. Title III - Wire Tap
L. Miscellaneous Defenses

Sufficiency of Evidence Generally

Sixth Circuit

•Sufficiency of Evidence-Inconsistent Verdicts
U.S. v. Jackson, 05-6014 (1/12/07)
> Defendant went to trial on one count of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 5 grams of crack, and one count of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 50 grams of crack. The jury convicted defendant of the conspiracy charge involving the 5 grams of crack, but acquitted him of the charge involving 50 grams. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for the 5 grams. Defendant claimed that the verdicts were inconsistent because the jury appeared to discredit the government witnesses who claimed to have sold to defendant amounts far in excess of 50 grams.
* Holding: The court held that the jury verdicts were not necessarily inconsistent because the jury may have chosen to believe some of the witness’ testimony, but discredited other parts of it. Further, the court emphasized that, even if the verdicts were inconsistent, the court would not assume that the inconsistency meant that the jury thought that defendant was innocent. The court found that it was equally possible that the jury was convinced of defendant’s guilt on one count, but then through “mistake, compromise, or lenity” arrived at the inconsistent verdict on the other offense. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.