Whether the Court should overrule its decision in Jackson v. Virginia, which rejected the 'reasonable hypothesis' test for motions for a judgment of acquittal

QUESTION PRESENTED At the close of the government’s evidence at his jury trial for Attempted Enticement of a Minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), Petitioner Ericksen made an oral motion for judgment of acquittal, pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That motion was denied. Following the jury’s guilty verdict, Petitioner Ericksen submitted a written motion for judgment of acquittal, under Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. That motion was also denied, and the denial was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Petitioner Ericksen concedes that the lower courts applied the current standard for such motions: Whether there is any evidence, however weighed, which would support a guilty verdict. Consequently, the issue respectfully presented is whether this Court should overrule its decision in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 325 (1979), which rejected the “reasonable hypothesis” test for motions for a judgment of acquittal. i