Does United States v. Powell prevent a court from reviewing—and giving effect to—a jury's special verdict finding when that finding negates the sole theory of guilt being prosecuted against a criminal defendant?

QUESTION PRESENTED During Petitioner Arthur Grady’s murder trial, the State pursued a single theory of guilt: Grady shot and killed the victim. The jury explicitly rejected that theory. It answered a special interrogatory tied to the murder count, finding that Grady did not pull the trigger. Yet the jury still convicted Grady of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to 60 years in prison. Despite the special verdict finding and the State’s limited evidentiary presentation, Grady’s counsel on direct appeal inexplicably refused to attack the sufficiency of the evidence to convict Grady under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). Instead, appellate counsel pursued a challenge related only to his sentencing. Based on this failure, Grady argued that his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). He made this argument throughout state and federal courts. But the Seventh Circuit misconstrued his claim as an unreviewable challenge to verdict inconsistency, insulated from review by United States v. Powell. This case presents one main question: 1. Does United States v. Powell prevent a court from reviewing—and giving effect to—a jury’s special verdict finding when that finding negates the sole theory of guilt being prosecuted against a criminal defendant?