In response to Petitioner's third and final motion for acquittal under Rule 29(c) Fed. R. Crim. P. the district court ruled that standing alone the government's eye witness identification testimony may well have warranted acquittal, given the witness es' failure to consistently identify Petitioner as t he male robber carrying the sawed -off shotgun during a robbery. To compensate for t his failure in proof the courts below claim that the government 's main wit ness, who those courts deemed an accomplice , testified to sufficient facts to send the case to the jury to determine whether Petitioner was indeed the shotgun toting robber. Accordingly the que stion presented is:

WHETHER THE PRESUMPTIVE FORCE OF THE RULE THAT THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT IS A LAWFUL SUBSTITUTE FOR THIS COURT'S RULE S GOVERNING ACQUITTAL MOTIONS ESPECIALLY WHERE, AS HERE, THE ACCO MPLICE DENIES BEING AN ACCOMPLICE BUT THE DISTRICT COURT RULES HIM AN ACCOMPLICE ANYWAY , A RULING THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUMMARILY AFFIRMS.

Whether the presumptive force of the rule that the testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to convict is a lawful substitute for this Court's rules governing acquittal motions