Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Blanchard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION


May 10, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARSHALL L. BLANCHARD, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge

OPINION

This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, a New Trial (#82) and Motion in Arrest of Judgment (#83) filed by Defendant, Marshall L. Blanchard. Defendant has also filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion in Arrest of Judgment (#84) and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, a New Trial (#85). On May 9, 2006, the Government filed its Consolidated Response to Defendant's Motions (#87).

This court has carefully reviewed Defendant's Motions, the Memoranda in support, and the Government's Response. Following this careful review, this court agrees with the Government that many of the issues raised were previously ruled on by this court. This court adheres to all of its prior evidentiary rulings as well as its rulings on the other issues raised by Defendant and previously ruled on by this court. To the extent that Defendant has raised issues regarding evidence and argument that were not objected to at trial, this court concludes that the objections were waived and also have no merit.

This court also agrees with the Government that the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly established that Defendant manufactured methamphetamine and possessed firearms on or near December 30, 2004, based upon the search of two residences owned by Defendant on that date and the testimony of Cynthia Blanding and Marshall Blanchard, Jr. This court therefore finds that Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

(1) Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or, in the Alternative, a New Trial (#82) is DENIED.

(2) Defendant's Motion in Arrest of Judgment (#83) is DENIED.

(3) This matter remains scheduled for sentencing on August 4, 2006, at 10:30 a.m.

ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2006

20060510

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.