Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 291

130 

McDANIEL  v.  BROWN 

Per Curiam 

that  one  of  Troy’s  brothers  would  also  match  the  DNA  left 
at the scene. 

III 

Although  we  granted  certiorari  to  review  respondent’s 
Jackson  claim,  the  parties  now  agree  that  the  Court  of  Ap­
peals’  resolution  of  his  claim  under  Jackson  was  in  error. 
See Brief for Respondent 2–3; Reply Brief for Petitioners 1. 
Indeed, respondent argues the Court of Appeals did not de­
cide  his  case  under  Jackson  at  all,  but  instead  resolved  the 
question  whether  admission  of  Romero’s  inaccurate  testi­
mony  rendered  his  trial  fundamentally  unfair  and  then  ap­
plied Jackson to determine whether that error was harmless. 
Although both petitioners and respondent are now aligned 
on  the  same  side  of  the  questions  presented  for  our  review, 
the  case  is  not  moot  because  “the  parties  continue  to  seek 
different relief ” from this Court.  Paciﬁc Bell Telephone Co. 
v.  linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U. S. 438, 446 (2009). 
Respondent primarily argues that we afﬁrm on his proposed 
alternative ground or remand to the Ninth Circuit for analy­
sis of his due process claim under the standard for harmless 
error  of  Brecht  v.  Abrahamson,  507  U. S.  619  (1993).  The 
State,  on  the  other  hand,  asks  us  to  reverse.  Respondent 
and one amicus have also suggested that we dismiss the case 
as  improvidently  granted,  Brief  for  National  Association  of 
Criminal  Defense  Lawyers  as  Amicus  Curiae  27–28,  but 
we  think  prudential  concerns  favor  our  review  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals’  application  of  Jackson.  Cf.  Paciﬁc  Bell,  supra, 
at 447. 

Respondent no longer argues it was proper for the District 
Court to admit the Mueller Report for the purpose of evalu­
ating  his  Jackson  claim,  Brief  for  Respondent  35,  and  con­
cedes  the  “purpose  of  a  Jackson  analysis  is  to  determine 
whether  the  jury  acted  in  a  rational  manner  in  returning  a 
guilty  verdict  based  on  the  evidence  before  it,  not  whether 
improper  evidence  violated  due  process,”  id.,  at  2.  There 
has  been  no  suggestion  that  the  evidence  adduced  at  trial