1. In a case where the proof against petitioner was wholly circumstantial and the eyewitnesses that were necessary to assign his conduct to those circumstances and who provided purported admissions of him, lied so much both inside and outside of the courtroom, when does the cumulative effect render such proof incredible as a matter of law and therefore legally insufficient to sustain convictions?

2. Do the interests of justice warrant a new trial where challenged statements that implicated petitioner made and advanced by a co-defendant near the end of a months-long trial, which, in conjunction with that co-defendant's own testimony, splintered the joint defense effort to the undue prejudice of petitioner?

Sufficiency-of-evidence