Sufficiency-of-evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In a case where the proof against petitioner was wholly circumstantial and the eyewitnesses that were necessary to assign his conduct to those circumstances and who provided purported admissions of him, lied so much both inside and outside of the courtroom, when does the cumulative effect render such proof incredible as a matter of law and therefore legally insufficient to sustain convictions? 2. Do the interests of justice warrant a new trial where challenged statements that implicated petitioner made and advanced by a co-defendant near the end of a months-long trial, which, in conjunction with that co-defendant’s own testimony, splintered the joint defense effort to the undue prejudice of petitioner? i DISCLOSURE OF PARTIES (Pursuant to Rule 14.1 [b][i]) The parties to this proceeding are the petitioner (and defendant), Andre Jenkins, aka Little Bear, who was the appellant in the court of appeals and respondent (and plaintiff), the United States of America. Mr. Jenkins challenges his conviction after jury trial in the Western District of New York with co-defendants Timothy Enix, aka Blaze, and David Pirk, who are not petitioners herein. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS (Pursuant to Rule 14.1 [b][ii]) Mr. Jenkins was convicted in the Western District of New York under case 15cr-00142 and judgment was entered on March 7, 2019, Doc. 1589. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied petitioner’s direct appeal by opinion filed on August 5, 2022 under docket number 19-610. ii