Due Process requires a criminal conviction be obtained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cooperating witness testimony is admissible evidence, though juries are specifically instructed to give such testimony stricter scrutiny. In Mr. Pierre-Paul's case, inconsistent testimony by a cooperating co-defendant constituted all of the direct evidence against him, including evidence of "consciousness of guilt" that not only prejudiced him at trial, but was used as the foundation for a sentencing enhancement.

The questions presented here are:

1. Is a conviction based on inconsistent and contradictory testimony of a cooperating co-defendant sufficient to sustain a conviction?

2. Is the probative value of vague testimony of that same biased and inconsistent witness to an alleged attempt to influence him not to testify outweighed by the substantial prejudice?

3. Is the same testimony, lacking content and context, sufficient to warrant an enhancement pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.1?

Is a conviction based solely on inconsistent and contradictory testimony from a cooperating co-defendant legally sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?