Whether any rational trier of fact could return a guilty verdict where the only evidence was a DNA hit of unknown type and quantity found on an easily moveable object left by the perpetrator of the crime, absent any evidence establishing when the DNA was deposited on the object and absent any other evidence linking the accused to the crime

It has long been the case that a criminal conviction must rest on sufficient proof . And sufficient proof means enough evidence to convince 12 jurors of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although not readily reducible to a precise definition, at a minimum beyond a reaso nable doubt requires enough evidence to bring the jury to a place of near certitude. This case addresses an application of the Jackson rule to easily moveable objects, and the opinion below splits the circuits on the question presented, which is: Whether any rational trier of fact could return a guilty verdict where the only evidence was a DNA hit of unknown type and quantity found on an easily moveable object left by the perpetrator of the crime, absent any evidence establishing when the DNA was deposited on the object and absent any other evidence linking the accused to the crime. ii RELATED OPINIONS The following proceedings are dire ctly related to this case within the meaning of Rule 14.1(b)(iii) • Tucker v. Nagy , No. 24 -1723, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered June 17, 2025. • Tucker v. Rewerts, No. 21 -cv-11494, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Entered August 1, 2024. • People v. Tucker, No 160429, Supreme Court of Michigan. Judgment entered March 27, 2020. • People v. Tucker, No. 343351, Court of Appeals of Michigan. Judgment entered August 29, 2019.