Opinion ID: 759696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Proceedings Leading to Conviction

Text: 3 In August 1991 Bloomer was indicted for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, a controlled substance, and for the substantive crime of maintaining a facility for, and manufacturing and distributing the drug. He was represented by counsel at his April 1992 trial, in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, before Judge Franklin S. Billings, Jr. 4 At the conclusion of the trial, the district court included in the charge the following instructions 5 To support a verdict of guilty, you need not find every fact beyond a reasonable doubt. You need only find that the government has established by the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt each and every essential element of the crime charged. 6 A reasonable doubt is a fair doubt, based upon the application of reason and common sense to the evidence presented. 7 The law does not require proof that overcomes all possible doubt. So a reasonable doubt means only a substantial doubt. 8 . . . . . 9 The law presumes that a defendant is innocent of the charges against him. The presumption of innocence last[s] throughout the trial and ends only if you, the jury, find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. 10 Should the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you may acquit the defendant on the basis of the presumption of innocence. 11 (emphasis added). 12 It bears underscoring that the trial court also advised the jurors--when the instructions were given originally and repeated later at the jury's request--that they could convict Bloomer only if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of each crime. Neither party objected to these instructions. The jury ultimately convicted petitioner on all charges, and in December 1992 he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 121 months' imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. 13 Bloomer appealed his conviction on several grounds--not including the constitutionality of the jury instructions--using the same counsel on appeal as he had at trial. The government cross-appealed, challenging the calculation of petitioner's sentence. We affirmed the conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing. See United States v. Spencer, 4 F.3d 115 (2d Cir.1993). On remand, Judge Billings imposed a sentence of 188 months' imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. This sentence was affirmed in an unpublished summary order. See United States v. Bloomer, 43 F.3d 1457 (2d Cir.1994) (table).