Blaine v. United States, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 214

Blaine was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree murder while armed, possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, and carrying a pistol without a license in the District of Columbia.
The underlying incident was a shootout in a Wellington Park apartment complex parking lot, resulting in the death of an innocent bystander; the government framed it as an urban gun-battle involving Blaine and co-defendants Burke and Carter.
Five principal witnesses testified at trial; two observed the shooting and identified Blaine as a shooter; Blaine and Burke offered alibi defenses; Carter testified he was present but did not possess a gun.
The trial court gave the standard Redbook reasonable-doubt instruction; after hours of deliberation, the jury sought more guidance and the court reinstructed with language from Payne, augmenting the Smith instruction.
Defense objected to the reinstruction as unbalancing and misdescribing the burden of proof; the note from the jury noted confusion and requested clarification.
Following the reinstruction, the jury quickly returned guilty verdicts on all charges, prompting Blaine to appeal on due-process grounds, arguing the reinstruction lowered the standard of proof.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did reinstruction on reasonable doubt, prompted by a jury note, misdescribe the burden of proof?	Blaine argues the reinstruction, framed as a change from Smith to Payne, lowered the standard and biased the jury.	The United States contends the reinstruction accurately stated the law and was a stylistic enhancement consistent with Payne.	Yes; the reinstruction created a reasonable likelihood of violating due process and required reversal.
Is Payne-based language controlling or applicable to reinstruction in this context?	Blaine contends Payne’s language, applied after the jury note, altered the standard in his favor improperly.	The United States maintains Payne language reflected proper embellishment and was not erroneous in context.	Payne language does not control the outcome; the contextual combination produced misdescription and error.
Was the reinstruction sufficiently balanced to avoid undue bias toward the government?	The judge’s invitation to look for 'change' and the extended 'not' language tipped the balance toward the state.	The reinstruction, viewed in isolation and as part of the entire instruction, was balanced and not inherently biased.	No; the reinstruction, in context, was unbalanced and raised a due-process concern.

Smith v. United States, 709 A.2d 78 (D.C. 1998) (en banc standard reasonable-doubt instruction; cautioned against embellishment)
Payne v. United States, 932 A.2d 1095 (D.C. 2007) (addressed plain-error review; language regarding doubt not deemed erroneous there)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (structural error for defective reasonable-doubt instruction; not harmless)
Davis v. United States, 510 A.2d 1052 (D.C. 1986) (warned against unbalanced reinstructions; importance of the last word to the jury)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1994) (standard for reviewing ambiguous instructions; 'reasonable likelihood' test)
Foreman v. United States, 633 A.2d 792 (D.C. 1993) (caution against lowering the reasonable-doubt standard via instruction)