Does the U.S. Constitution embrace a criminal conspiracy conviction when the government presents non-incriminating evidence of innocent conduct regarding what an individual may have known or intended causing the jury to speculate guilt or innocence creating unfairness to a defendant and that this 'loose practice' as to conspiracy offenses 'constitutes a serious'

QUESTION PRESENTED The government’s theory in this case was that petitioner Mr. James Randolph Sherman was the supplier of heroin and cocaine and co-defendant Mr. Lindsey Mills was the seller. Mr. Sherman was never seen with Mr. Mills during the drug sales. The government presented evidence that these two men met at each other’s respective homes after the drug deals. However, law enforcement watched these meetings and did not see any exchange of drugs or money between these two friends. The government also presented evidence of unrecorded telephone calls between Mr. Sherman and Mr. Mills. No one knows what was said during these calls. Mr. Mills did not testify against Mr. Sherman and no other eyewitness implicated Mr. Sherman. Based on this speculative evidence, the jury convicted Mr. Sherman of drug conspiracy. The question presented is: Does the U.S. Constitution embrace a criminal conspiracy conviction when the government presents non-incriminating evidence of innocent conduct regarding what an individual may have known or intended causing the jury to speculate guilt or innocence creating unfairness to a defendant and that this “loose practice” as to conspiracy offenses “constitutes a serious 2