College student Sam Alden returns home in Rochester, NY for a Christmas visit with his family. During his visit he encounters his former high school classmate, Burnell and late one evening the two drive around in Burnell's car. Police stop them, and it turns out the car matches the description of a getaway car used in a nearby liquor store holdup in which the salesperson was killed 20 minutes earlier. The police officers direct Burnell to open the trunk where they discover a sawed-off shotgun and three Uzi automatic rifles. Alden and Burnell are charged with unlawful possession of firearms.

At trial, the prosecutor offers evidence of the facts outlined above. He also calls Clayton as a witness, and he testifies that he and Burnell belong to a gun club and that Burnell once bragged that "I have a bunch of Uzis, and a modified shotgun."

At the close of evidence, the prosecutor requests that the court instruct the jury as follows:

The presence in a car of a loaded firearm is presumptive evidence of an unlawful possession. On proof of the presence of guns in the car, you may infer that each defendant in the car possessed them. The presumption is effective only so long as there is no substantial evidence contradicting that conclusion, and it disappears when contradictory evidence is adduced. To establish unlawful possession of a weapon, the prosecutor relied on the presumption as well as the testimony. Accordingly, you would be warranted in returning a verdict of guilty if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that possession is proved, and an element of such proof is the presumption of illegal possession.

Alden and Burnell both object, claiming the instruction violates due process. The prosecution replies that the Supreme Court in Allen (County of Ulster v. Allen, 442 US 140(1979) ) has approved such instruction.

On these facts, is the instruction proper:

1. As against Alden?

2. As against Burnell?