On March 19, 2010, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Nevils held that a reviewing court hearing criminal appeals on the grounds of insufficient evidence must resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the prosecution and ask only if any rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision makes it more difficult for the Ninth Circuit to reverse criminal convictions and ultimately preserves the jury’s proper role as the trier of fact.
Vincent M. Chiappini, No Longer Playing Nevils Advocate: The Ninth Circuit Constricts Appellate Review for Insufficiency of Evidence Claims, 52 B.C.L. Rev. E. Supp. 97 (2011), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol52/iss6/9