(“When confronted with a problem of taint, we must consider whether the presence of the [invalidated] count had any spillover effect sufficiently prejudicial to call for reversal of the remaining counts.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Jones, 16 F.3d 487, 493 (2d Cir.1994) (“[prejudicial spillover from evidence used to obtain a conviction subsequently reversed on appeal may constitute compelling prejudice” that requires a new trial). The defendants contend that the jury’s consideration of the remaining counts could have been unduly influenced by its consideration of the counts for which insufficient evidence was presented at trial, and so a new trial for those remaining counts is required. See, e.g., United States v. Scotti, 47 F.3d 1237, 1247 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Court’s above ruling denying
recognizing that if there is evidence upon which one may reasonably infer an element of the crime the evidence is sufficient to sustain that element and where reasonable minds could differ the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes recognizing risk of spillover prejudice to defendants on conspiracy count where government presented insufficient evidence to sustain conviction for substantive crimes recognizing attempt and conspiracy as inchoate crimes holding that evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is sufficient to sustain conspiracy conviction