the jackson rule is derived from the presumption of innocence which extends to those who are not want to be blameless but are nonetheless wrongly convicted the three steps of the jackson analysis are first to terminate the elements of the state law presume the facts in favor of the verdict and then determine whether any rational juror could have found that there was a reasonable doubt as to the elements of a crime here the crime conspiracy to commit murder under california law requires that the defendant not only enter into the criminal agreement but also that he personally and actually intended to kill the victim that is the element of issue in this case most important for purposes of the appeal under california law the jury may rely on circumstantial evidence of the element of intent to kill only if that's the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence that is the instruction that was provided to the jury in this case as to specifically the element of criminal intent in other words the evidence of intent must have been so unequivocal that it could only have reasonably supported a verdict of guilt given those jury instructions defining the elements of the crime and in particular the elements of criminal intent no rational juror could have concluded that there was sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that mr poor uncle actually intended to kill frankie well no construing the facts and jackson's second step is a simple task in this case because those facts were essentially uncontested nearly all of the evidence that was submitted at trial consisted of tape recorded in applying the sufficiency of the evidence standard here yes we are your honor and in particular the analytical error that stands out most clearly is when the court stated that they could have reasonably inferred that he had the correct intent that's applying essentially a some evidence standard which was specifically rejected in jackson and jackson held that the standard in her tonsils versus louisville which was at issue there that one of some evidence was there some evidence that could have supported this verdict they specifically rejected that standard they said that's a due process issue that's related to whether you have a right to liberty what we're considering here in this case in jackson versus virginia is what is the presumption of innocence and it's a safeguard against wrongful convictions and they specifically held that a review in court may review all the facts in the case as a jury would and decide whether a rational juror must appear clued there was a reasonable doubt that's the analytical mistake that was made in the court of appeal opinion they said well around a juror could have concluded this but that's not good enough under jackson it bypasses the constitutional question which is based on th factual record was there a reasonable doubt that no rational juror could ignore and clearly in this case there was there was ample evidence that mr poole onco did not intend to actually kill frankie boyle no there were two visits that he to this house both times being coerced by the handlers from the gang who were essentially ordering him to do this to do this murder and he never made an attempt on mr wellness life he made many very unconvincing and trivial excuses throughout the entire period that he was being written recorded and observed by the police and those sound like very good arguments that were the record is asking the question that was asked in jackson can an appellate court should an appellate court look at the facts again and determine that the jury made a mistake in the supreme court was clear that this court pella courts are empowered to do that as part of the constitutional mandate of the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt juries do make mistakes there are occasions that this court has found that the evidence submitted at a state criminal trial is simply not sufficient to support the conviction and again sufficiency under jackson and under winship that's a separate question from whether or not there was any evidence at all or some evidence that's not the issue here and the court of appeals have we got it wrong they applied a bare bones some evidence standard never making any reference to beyond a reasonable doubt or the presumption of innocence which is what was safeguarded in jackson and the issues raised in the state court appeal the precise language used by the court of appeal opinion was the jury was entitle to infer guilt they never mentioned proof beyond a reasonable doubt or the fact that the jury was guided by the jury instructions required to accept a reasonable inference of innocence given that all the evidence of criminal intent to kill was circumstantial in this case they were duty bound to do that the instructions specifically directed them to consider the circumstantial evidence of intent in that manner but the court of appeal essentially bypassed the constitutional question and applied a standard that which much lower than the one that jackson requires on these uncontested facts in construing the elements as defined under california law a reasonable doubt would have existed in the mind of any rational trier of fact because polaha who repeatedly and consistently avoided doing what he had been ordered to do was uncontested at trial as well that if palumbo had not made a show of cooperating with the handlers who were ordering him to carry out this mission he himself would have been killed he essentially had no choice but to say ok i'll go along with it but again repeatedly again and again he's ordered to do this and he doesn't do it and so the unmistakable rational inference from that circumstantial evidence is that he didn't intend to carry it out and there's also plenty of evidence in the record that plank zero and who were essentially people were seeing him knew that the police have surrounded frankie boyle now early on in this incident in april of two thousand and five the police already warned well now that he was a target and the police were everywhere around this man so the notion that knowing this political knows that there's police all over the place that he's actually personally intending i'm going to go the morning and may please the court david glassman for the respondent first of all just a bookkeeping matter we indicated in our brief the related case of arthur garcia who was one of the co defendants because that case apparently were originally presented a shared issue in this case not the issue the council's argued garcia has apparently not proceeded with an appeal no appeal was filed in this court so just to correct the related case indication turning to the sufficiency of the evidence claim all one needs to do leaving aside the fact that as the court is aware sufficiency of the evidence is is probably the most frequently litigated claim in any any state court much less in the heaviest context if we look at excerpts of record page one thirty five supplemental excerpts i think that directly addresses responds and rebuts the claim that it's made here so under the standard review section identified by the state appellate court the california court of appeal here states that the defendant sufficiency of the evidence claims are determined under whether any rational trier of fact could have found prove beyond a reasonable doubt and there's a citation to jackson versus virginia there the state appellate court goes on quoting jackson with the following this inquiry does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt instead the relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have convicted that's that supplemental excerpt one thirty five my point in citing that is that there is no indication here that the state appellate court was under any misapprehension of the relevant standard of review nor did the state court have any difficulty addressing these claims which are purely and simply a request and the reason that i point that out is that this case is fundamentally different from the rare case in which this court for example has found evidence insufficient those were cases in which the court concluded under jackson and more recently with the additional standard of review imposed by the d p a but regardless those were cases in which the conclusion was reached that there is no evidence of guilt none and for that reason the conviction is invalid this case is fundamentally different in this case there is page after page of evidence of guilt the question is or the question for the jury more appropriately was what inferences do you draw from that and in light of the defendant's claim that he was simply feigning his involvement so that all the evidence that he's following the victim all the evidence that he's armed all the evidence there is an explicit agreement to kill the victim the references that are made to smoking the victim the fact that the gun is found in his car blocks from the victim's home etc that's all evidence that is totally unlike  going to resolve the defense that was asserted the jury rejected that defense the jury's rule is to evaluate evidence that's the role of a trial jury not an appellate court absent extreme circumstances that are not responded urges the court to make the same analytical error that was made by the court of appeal which is essentially to collapse the thompson versus louisville no evidence standard with the jackson vs virginia standard requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt a plain reading of the jackson case demonstrates that the united states supreme court expressly considered the respondents a precise position here which is that it's improper to look again at the evidence and the way it in that we should only under the constitution consider that whether there was any evidence at all of each element and if there was if the if condition must be affirmed jackson specifically considered that argument and rejected it and it is an entirely separate constitutional basis to determine whether there was no evidence or some evidence in the way to determine whether there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and a couple of times during respond its argument they put forth that there are only the court can only vacate the conviction if there evidence or no evidence at all that's simply not true it collapses analytically to separate lines of constitutional authority in this case this is a jackson claim where we are arguing that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt