Jury finds former Vail police officer not guilty of harassment
Adam Bloom, a former officer with the Vail Police Department, was found not guilty of harassment Friday in a jury trial that began Thursday.
The trial wrapped up a case in which Bloom was accused of intent to harass, annoy or alarm a Vail woman at Local Joe’s bar and pizza restaurant in the early morning hours of March 25, 2023. Bloom was terminated from the Vail Police Department as a result of the incident.
The prosecution focused on the portion of the charge related to annoying the alleged victim, saying Bloom was focused on convincing the woman to come home with him, and used annoyance as a tactic to achieve that end.
Attorney Dru Nielsen, arguing on Bloom’s behalf, told the jury that didn’t make sense, as Bloom’s intent was to seduce the woman, which is the opposite of harassing, annoying or alarming her.
The alleged victim took the stand on Thursday, saying she visited Local Joe’s on the evening of March 24 at about 10 p.m., closed her tab at about 12:45 a.m. on March 25, and after she closed her tab but while she was still sitting at the bar, three men showed up including Bloom and two friends. She said she was approached by Bloom who asked her to go home with him and she told him no.
Support Local Journalism
Nielsen argued the alleged victim did not, in her original statement to police, say that she had told Bloom no while they were at the bar.
Nielsen also asked the alleged victim if Bloom was “chatting with you about random stuff,” and the alleged victim did not acknowledge that she was, in those words, chatting with Bloom about random stuff.
Nielsen then played the audio of the alleged victim’s statement to police, in which she said “he was just chatting random stuff.”
The alleged victim said Bloom told her to wait for him but she was uncomfortable so she left while Bloom was preoccupied with something else, and Bloom chased her across the street as she was approaching her nearby residence, grabbing her by the hand. Bloom then asked her again to go home with him, she said, being persistent in his advances while she continued to say no. She became increasingly scared, she said, turning around and going back to Local Joe’s and attempting to re-enter the establishment, which was closed at that point. She said she tried knocking on the door to re-enter the establishment because she didn’t want Bloom to know where she lived.
She said Bloom followed her back to Local Joe’s, but at that point, Bloom’s friends were insisting for him to leave and after he left, she did not see him again until Thursday’s trial.
Want the news to come to you? Get the top stories in your inbox every morning. Sign up here: VailDaily.com/newsletter
After hearing from the alleged victim, Nielsen made a motion for the trial to be acquitted. Judge Inga Causey denied the motion, saying there was enough evidence of intent to harass or alarm, “especially with the statement that Mr. Bloom grabbed (the alleged victim).”
Nielsen zeroed in on that statement and said that the victim did not tell police, in her original statement, that she was grabbed by Bloom.
In addition to the alleged victim, the jurors also heard from former Local Joe’s bartender Lidia Whipple, who was working that night.
Whipple told Nielsen that the alleged victim was a regular at Local Joe’s and had a few drinks that night. Whipple also said the alleged victim had a crush on a cook at Local Joe’s, but when it came time for the alleged victim to acknowledge that during her testimony, she attempted to dodge the question, requiring the judge to step in and ask her to answer the question. She then denied having a crush on the cook.
Nielsen, in her closing argument, used that discrepancy to attack the credibility of the alleged victim.
“(The alleged victim’s) statement has changed,” Nielsen said. “She has an agenda. I’m not sure I fully understand it, but her statement has changed and her memory is selective. Perhaps the best example of this is about the cook — her demeanor on the stand, her resistance to answer that question, her selective memory, does that cause you pause? It should, and that right there is reasonable doubt.”
The jury, which was originally six people but was reduced to five on Friday due to a medical emergency, deliberated for about 90 minutes before issuing the unanimous not-guilty verdict.
Bloom did not testify but, following the trial, said he was glad to have the incident behind him.
“That was the worst year of my life,” he said.
