. The dichotomy drawn by the panel between circumstantial and direct evidence is questionable. Convictions often rest on inferences which are drawn from direct testimony, as well as circumstantial evidence. 3 . The result of this case — a federal appeals court reversing the state’s highest court on the question of evidentiary sufficiency in a criminal prosecution — is also surprising given the SJC's historically favorable treatment of criminal defendants. Indeed, the SJC often extends criminal defendants greater protections than those required under the federal Constitution. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Gomes, 453 Mass. 506, 903 N.E.2d 567 (2009) (limiting the police's power to pat frisk suspected drug dealers for weapons); Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848, 725 N.E.2d 169 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The prosecution argued that O'Laughlin
holding that police failure to inform the accused of his attorneys attempts to contact him and misstatements to the attorney as to whether the accused was at the police station did not violate the accuseds due process rights holding that the state failed to rebut the defendants testimony that he was forced to leave his approved residence and could not reach the probation officer to inform him of his move holding that the failure to inform the defendant of his right to a sixperson jury and the failure to consult the defendant as to his wishes was an error for which a new trial was the only remedy holding that the police have a duty to inform a criminal defendant of his lawyers efforts to contact him holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant