may please the court i am timothy erickson this is an attorney general for the state of michigan here on behalf of the respondent appellants and if i may i would like to reserve three minutes of my time for about john adams in the defense of the british soldiers involved in the boston massacre said facts are stubborn things and under ed in jackson and the double deference mandated by those two things facts are truly stubborn things and here are the facts those stubborn facts that show mr copeland is guilty of receiving concealing that still when black impala lumber one he drove one hundred miles from detroit to charlotte michigan in order to acquire to erect chevrolet impala he negotiated the entire deal himself paid in cash but then elected to have the store the sale memorialized in the name of his girlfriend miss hinton now that that vin the donor vin from the white chevrolet impala appears on the stolen black impala back in detroit among notably other stolen cars other stolen cars again with altered vince and these are in front of the residence at thirty nine fifty joseph campbell in the garage of that residence there was a yet another stolen automobile and the  neighbor testified that mr copeland began frequenting that residence two or three times a week starting in two thousand and nine and she ultimately concluded that he resided there the police search of the interior of that residence confirmed that there are officials state documents with his name there was a shopping list of cars that also contained his name in addition to men's clothing and other items that are not inconsistent with him being the one total collectively but it's also important for any court reviewing this efficiency of the evidence to look at the particular crime at play and here the receiving in concealing offense is a very broad offense and it is meant to capture a lot of conduct as explained by the michigan supreme court and people be away and that is illustrated by the contested second element here where there are five different ways a sensually that an individual can violate the statute bought received concealed possess or aided in the concealment of stolen property in so in light of that we've got a very broad general offense and a laundry list of facts that point to mr copeland as receiving in s the stolen property in alternate way for this court to look at the facts in this case is as opposed to going chronologically as i just did start at the end with the stolen black and paul as detective duple says did in his his testimony and on upon record distinct from the findings of the michigan court of appeals which show sufficient evidence the district court's opinion on the other hand for sake said book engages in aden ovo review of the record inserting inaccurate factual findings for the multiple inferences and specifically in the state of michigan as people be hardiman explicitly held is permissible insufficiency review to consider inference made upon another inference  finding sufficient evidence and as this court well knows we were applying a general constitutional standard such as the one explained in jackson state courts are given broad broad leeway in applying that standard and so here you know the court's not saying that you've got to  made a big deal out of that sale at leas auto body and the state believes rightfully so because through that sale orchestrated by mr copeland we learned a lot about his plan intent and his ultimate execution of the receiving and concealing offense whereas the district court though quoting the michigan court of appeals its analysis is substantive analysis largely ignores that significant fact and significant transaction secondly the michigan  appeals went to great lengths to identify all mr copeland's connections to thirty nine fifty joseph campbell now again very distinct the district court made a specific finding saying that mr copeland may have frequented that residence and that finding is not supported by the record nor is it supported by the michigan court of appeals findings we have the testimony of the neighbor who said he lived there we have the men's clothing we have the different documents bearing his name on the inside of that residen and there's sufficient evidence on the record for the finding that the michigan court of appeals me essentially that he lives there now the district court did not stop there and went beyond that to find that miss hinton was the one who in fact live there and again this is not supported by the record she specifically told the police she didn't live there there was no women's clothing there for her to wear there were no toys for her young child to play with were as there's all these other indicators of  final a deficiency that the stay will address today is brings us back to the nature of this offense the broad nature of this offense and that is that the district court in its opinion in reciting the elements and even in concealing left off two of the five different ways to to violate that second element and in this case that's that's a very significant not the bought there's no evidence to state i can see that mr copeland bought the black  but the another one that was left off by the district court is really important that is the aided in concealment here by going to lee's auto body by purchasing a salvage chevrolet impala for the purpose of taking off the donor even to cover up the identity of the stolen black in paula mr copeland completed the offense by aiding in the concealment he essentially acquired the means the vessel by was was on the prosecutor's closing argument which was was very brief and not specific in what theory the prosecution was yuri instructed on  when the jury was given instructions by the trial court it was given all five including eight in the concealment and this state believes that that is important you know we're garbus of what the prosecutor argued the prosecutor kind of got up and argued well we think that he bought this we think he body here's the evidence we think he bought it well the jury was instructed on all five and in the michigan court of appeals in reviewing this efficiency of the evidence is presumed to have considered the full breadth of the offense in finding sufficient evidence here the record in the findings of the michigan court of appeals show that mr copeland received an concealed that stolen black impala by using the donor of in the district court ignored the record the district court did not give proper deference to the michigan court of appeals opinion and his job and him said the facts are stubborn things and the stubborn facts in this case mandated under the double deference  good morning thank you and may please the court georgics on behalf of petitioner appellee curtis copeland during mr copeland's criminal trial the state presented strong evidence that mr copeland was involved in the purchase of the white and paula it presented weak evidence that mr copeland lived at the residence at joseph campo at ave but when it comes to the black impala the actual stolen property at issue the state presented no evidence to demonstrating that mr copeland possessed the black impala which is the only theory the state has ever argued throughout this entire case until this stage and then to be argued there was circumstantial is evidence that certainly that mr copeland played a role in purchasing that white impala and there is evidence that mr copeland again weak evidence but circumstantial evidence that mr copeland lived at that residen but as far as the evidence that makes that link between the white impala and this black impala that was found out front i think that the only way you create that link is by speculating and as this court has said in numerous on jackson even with deference and again i will compare the circumstantial evidence that puts mr copeland in his residence because there you've got well so you've got some men's clothes and you've got a neighbor that says well he came  once a couple times that circumstantial evidence that might support him being at the residence but as far as getting you to the point where you can say well how do you what is the evidence connecting him to the fact of possessing that black impala that was on the street in front of the house and more important the element of knowledge mr copeland knowing that that black impala was stolen and the only way you get there is by this inference that the state has continued to make that then just somehow ended up there that it must have been him i think that's the root of speculation and i think that the way that the state really wants you to rely on speculation is by the fact that first of all and it's a reply brief it barely discusses the evidence supporting the conviction it comes at the end of its brief after twenty pages and even then the state's best argument is that the police officer thinks he did it which i think just shows that we're talking about speculation here there's the evidence mr carro on to the purchase  both that mr copeland possessed the black impala which again is the only theory on which the state has proceeded throughout this case now not that's not the only i mean there is a being po well two responses if i may judge givens the first is that actually three again the fact that the state has never used the ating theory throughout this case that at trial on director of view on federal habeas before the district court even in seeking a stay it's always presumed it is always proceeded on a theory of constructive possession if the government method of producing is strong argument  apply it well i have a couple response to that the first is that i think that it does take it out of the picture because in addition to the state only proceeding on a constructive possession theory that's all the state appellate court did to in its one line on the theory that the government argued or can it be on any valets sion that the statute covers actually given the fact that according to your every theory the district court i mean the district court the trial court instructed the theory that would be possible well first i guess i would take a bit of issue with that representation that the district court instructed in all theories because the prosecution theory there was not an instruction on that point which is what michigan law applies and again that is consistent with how the state has can as consistently presented this case then on which the state appellate court presented a case that would also point out that even if you were to proceed under this evening in the concealment of you still have to have aiding and concealment and michigan state law which i see nothing in the state's brief to the contrary talks about concealing is a continuous action  that actually involves hiding something and here we have a car that was on a public road there's not even any evidence that actually puts mr copeland with the car at the same time there's no evidence with any fingerprint  state did not prevail on that count and i think that reflects the fact the very clear fact that they did not have any evidence that connected mr copeland from these two situations purchasing the white i and living at the house to the actual black and palin fronts now it's not the defense's job to come up with a reason or an alibi or anything like that but you could very much you know think about the idea of you mean  purchase of the white impala and because he lived at the residence then therefore he is the person who possessed this black impala and he knew that it was stolen and it appropriate to the jury  it makes three statements to this effect the first being a jury may occasionally convict even when it can be said that no trial a rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that's at page three seventeen the next is that page three eighteen when such a conviction occurs in a state trial it cannot constitutionally stand the application of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to the evidence is not irretrievably committed to jury discretion and finally i don't think that is the i me with  verdict simply reflects that there was no evidence linking everything over here the purchase of the white impala the jury to be through with your argument black impala being stolen i think i would agree but again this state throughout its briefing particularly and for pli brief after we set out all of the holes in this evidence had absolutely no response to any of this instead what they argue and i think this is very telling is that basically this court cannot rely on its own precedents in which it is found on at peer review a violation of jackson including in particular the precedence in which this court has found that speculation is insufficient and i think there's a pretty good reason why the court why i'm sorry the state is arguing that you shouldn't look to your own precedents that hold that speculation is insufficient is because secular nation is all they have to make this necessary connection and as you have said in place for cases speculation is insufficient and that's you know that's not this circuit's precedence it goes back to supreme court cases from decades ago this is a case alabama from one thousand eleven talking about the element of criminal intent intent can rarely be proved by direct evidence but must be ascertained by means of inferences from the facts and circumstances developed by the proof in the absence however of evidence from which such inferences may be drawn the jury are not justified in indulging in mere unsupported conjectures speculations or suspicions so i think that the fact that the state is pushing you to ignore your own precedence whether it's brown v palmer or newman if you measure is joseph equal parker view when i go in which this court has said speculation is insufficient the state is pushing that and if not talking about the evidence i think is a very clear indication that all the state has to go on to prove these two necessary elements is speculation and the other one other thing that the state continues to press on are these objections to what the district court did in its opinion talking about the different elements talking about you know how it looked at the fact that i think that there are a number of responses to this number one this courts have used to know so you can draw your own conclusions based on the briefing based on the evidence that the state put forward and based on your own precedents number two again it presses on this idea that well there were five different ways that this crime could be proven and again as we've already discussed that actually was not how the state ever proceeded in this case it has only proceeded on a theory of constructive possession of the black impala and nowhere in the state's briefing doesn't even try to explain how mr copeland constructively possessed the black impala through any of the evidence and there's a good reason for that the construct of possession in michigan requires both proximity and control over there's absolutely no evidence even given the state the reasonable doubt given every reasonable inference that there was any control by mr copeland over the black impala equally there is absolutely no evidence again given this state all reasonable inferences that mr copeland knew that the first if i if i may direct the court's attention to our reply brief at the stamped document page twenty seven footnote ten providing the page eighty page eighty four sixty three is where the prosecutor disavowed the aiding and abetting theory that occurred after closing for deliberation and that was said outside the hearing of the jury so if the prosecutor's going off it off on the c on and saying all this was never an aiding abetting it doesn't matter it's not facts it was after the jury had already been instructed it's after the jury already heard argument and so it's frankly irrelevant and you know bring this into  mr copas point about you know the state's only theory has ever been possession the constitutional review under jackson is not did the state satisfy prove everything that it said in argument or the focus of its argument that's not the standard the standard is is there sufficient evidence to convict and here the jury is can is instructed on all those five different ways not just possession and so it's it's not limited and even so the prosecutor at trial did not limit it to a possession the michigan court's emphasis on possession was in response to how petitioner crafted his  brief on appeal focusing largely on the possession which has been proven here the government's not just hang its hat on the eight in concealment the possession still very much in play under michigan law control can be accomplished through another person in this comes from the hill case that's cited by petitioner in his brief and possession can be joint and so there can be possession through miss hinton if this court so  finds i want to dress the inconsistent verdicts as this court well knows in sounds like there's there's no real disagreement there about the inconsistent groups well i will close with this is a this is a very unique case and if i may by way of analogy to analogous to the dissent in davis where the big issue was as explained in this anything from judge moore there's all this evidence of after the crime and so we can't find circumstantially that  the crime was committed here all our evidence is or a lot of the evidence of intent is front loaded in that sale at least auto body and that is merely confirmed by what the police found in front of mr copas residence at thirty nine fift so even if this court were to go back and look at this through the lens of the davis dissent there's still sufficient evidence here because we have a ton more of the upfront intent showing that that in m will be submitted and you may call the next