Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 288

Cite as: 558 U. S. 120 (2010) 

127 

Per Curiam 

The  Ninth  Circuit  afﬁrmed.  525  F.  3d  787.  The  court 
held  the  Nevada  Supreme  Court  had  unreasonably  applied 
Jackson.  525 F. 3d, at 798; see 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).  The 
Court  of  Appeals  ﬁrst  reasoned  “the  admission  of  Romero’s 
unreliable  and  misleading  testimony  violated  Troy’s  due 
process rights,” so the District Court was correct to exclude 
it.  525  F.  3d,  at  797.  It  then  “weighed  the  sufﬁciency  of 
the remaining evidence,” including the District Court’s “cat­
alogu[e] [of] the numerous inconsistencies that would raise a 
reasonable  doubt  as  to  Troy’s  guilt  in  the  mind  of  any  ra­
tional  juror.”  Ibid.  In  light  of  the  “stark”  conﬂicts  in  the 
evidence  and  the  State’s  concession  that  there  was  insufﬁ­
cient  evidence  absent  the  DNA  evidence,  the  court  held  it 
was objectively unreasonable for the Nevada Supreme Court 
to reject respondent’s insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. 
Id., at 798. 

We  granted  certiorari,  555  U. S.  1152  (2009),  to  consider 
two  questions:  the  proper  standard  of  review  for  a  Jackson 
claim  on  federal  habeas,  and  whether  such  a  claim  may  rely 
upon evidence outside the trial record that goes to the relia­
bility of trial evidence. 

II 

Respondent’s claim has now crystallized into a claim about 
the  import  of  two  speciﬁc  inaccuracies  in  the  testimony  re­
lated  to  the  DNA  evidence,  as  indicated  by  the  Mueller  Re­
port.  The  Mueller  Report  does  not  challenge  Romero’s 
qualiﬁcations as an expert or the validity of any of the tests 
that she performed.  Mueller instead contends that Romero 
committed  the  so-called  “prosecutor’s  fallacy”  and  that  she 
underestimated the probability of a DNA match between re­
spondent and one of his brothers. 

the  victim’s  stepfather  as  an  alternative  suspect.  Brown  v.  Farwell, 
No. 3:03–cv–00712–PMP–VPC, 2006 WL 6181129, *9–*10 (D Nev., Dec. 14, 
2006).  The Court of Appeals did not consider those claims on appeal, and 
they are not now before us.