Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. App. The jury found Fields not guilty of one count of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, Under the Rule, "Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. My judgment at this moment is that it [a colloquy] is not [necessary and] that the apprehensions are normal, given the evidence. [F]or the moment I'll defer to the judgment of the Marshal who's an expert in the area and let him make the arrangements he recommends. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. App. Frankly, I think Juror No. 2d 572 (1986). (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant He testified that he saw Thornton on one occasion in 1989 with co-conspirator Aaron Jones and Reginald Reaves and on another occasion at Jamison's house when Thornton had a gun in his possession. The Rule states in relevant part: "A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case." The district court, after ascertaining that it had jurisdiction to entertain the post-trial motions, see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S.Ct. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. Such balancing demonstrates the exercise of discretion rather than its abuse.6 Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no further expressions of apprehensiveness occurred during the following eleven days of the trial and by the court's instruction to the jury that "there was never the slightest realistic basis for any feeling of insecurity." More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. [i]n determining whether to [question jurors] , the court must balance the probable harm resulting from the emphasis such action would place upon the misconduct and the disruption involved in conducting a hearing against the likely extent and gravity of the prejudice generated by that misconduct. at 2378. at 55, S.App. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. at 50-55. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 914 F.2d at 944. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. Michael Baylson, U.S. We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. at 93. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. S.App. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. On October 2, 1991 a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a thirty-two count indictment charging Thornton, Jones, Fields, and twenty-three others with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin between late 1985 and September 1991. 3 and Mr. Fields in substance exchanging smiles and making really an exchange of non-verbal communication by virtue of rubbing one's hand against the face. [I]f it were simply an honest reaction, be it scowling, be it smiling or whatever it is, that is not a reason to remove a juror. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Thornton's and Jones' new trial motions because they failed to file a second notice of appeal from the district court's denial of the post-trial motions. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. App. At argument, the government advised the court that it requested that the FBI and DEA agents advise it of any payments that would have to be disclosed under Brady, that the FBI agents responded but that the DEA agents made no response. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. ), cert. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Defendants' final contention on appeal concerns the government's failure to disclose until after trial two letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) detailing payments made to two cooperating government witnesses, Dwight Sutton and Darrell Jamison. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. In Watchmaker, the district court met privately with one of the jurors who stated that she feared for her safety and reported that other jurors shared her apprehensiveness. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 1985), cert. 143 for abuse of discretion. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 Nashville, TN. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. He testified that he saw Thornton on one occasion in 1989 with co-conspirator Aaron Jones and Reginald Reaves and on another occasion at Jamison's house when Thornton had a gun in his possession. * Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant [s] for use at trial." In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. ("The judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences. [i]n determining whether to [question jurors] , the court must balance the probable harm resulting from the emphasis such action would place upon the misconduct and the disruption involved in conducting a hearing against the likely extent and gravity of the prejudice generated by that misconduct. In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir.1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 2-91-cr-00570-003. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. All three defendants were sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to life imprisonment, and Thornton and Jones were each ordered to forfeit $6,230,000 to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Id. at 93. at 2378. 2d 789 (1980). at 744-45. Filed: We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 1987). 2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required."). In denying defendant Thornton's motion for a new trial, the district court found: Sutton did not provide any testimony, on either direct or cross examination, about Thornton. Sec. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. Id. In order for the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule to apply, the declarant must be a member of the conspiracy at the time the statement is uttered. We rely on donations for our financial security. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). at 49. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 1991), cert. S.App. 922(g) (1) (1988). ), cert. at 92 (record citations omitted). There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. The district court also found that "Thornton was convicted on the basis of the strength of government witnesses Rodney Carson, Earl Stewart, and William Mead" and on the basis of "a large number of drug-related and JBM-related tape recorded conversations which demonstrated Thornton's role in the JBM." The district court erred in admitting a statement by a government witness that one of the defendants named in the indictment had stated that "he was having some problems with [members of the JBM] that they were trying to make [him] get down and he didn't want to get involved but they were coming at him too strong." The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. 2d 395 (1979). Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . The district court, after ascertaining that it had jurisdiction to entertain the post-trial motions, see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. The jury found Fields not guilty of one count of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, Under the Rule, "Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. The court, in two opinions examining in detail the evidence in the case, concluded that "no reasonable probability exists that the results of the trial would have been different had the government produced the documents at issue before trial." The Supreme Court has stated that we must "presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." The indictment alleged that all defendants were members of a criminal organization known as the Junior Black Mafia ("the JBM"), which sold and distributed for resale large amounts of cocaine and heroin in the Philadelphia area. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 91-00570-03. The Supreme Court has stated that we must "presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. In light of the district court's wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror, we conclude the rulings here were well within its discretion.D. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 841(a) (1) (1988). In order to warrant a reversal of the district court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for severance, a defendant has a heavy burden: "he must demonstrate clear and substantial prejudice resulting in a manifestly unfair trial." In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant[s] for use at trial." The case status is Pending - Other Pending. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. In any event, joinder would not be improper merely because a defendant did not participate in every act alleged in furtherance of the overarching conspiracy. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. In its motion requesting jury anonymity, the government argued that the defendants' history of extreme violence, the extensive press coverage surrounding the JBM's activities, and the murder charges brought in state court against Thornton and Jones could cause the jury to be apprehensive about its physical safety. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). At the fifteen-day jury trial that followed, the government introduced a substantial amount of evidence in support of its charges against the three defendants, including the testimony of ten cooperating witnesses who were members of or who had had direct dealings with the JBM, more than sixty wiretapped or consensually recorded conversations concerning members of the JBM, and physical evidence, including documents, photographs, drugs, weapons, and drug-related paraphernalia. This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). 1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. at 92. Id. 92-1635. As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." 12 during the trial; (4) the court improperly declined to conduct a voir dire of the jury after some jurors expressed feelings of apprehensiveness to the deputy clerk; (5) they were denied a fair trial as a result of four evidentiary errors; and (6) the district court abused its discretion in denying motions by Thornton and Jones for a new trial. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Tuesday, April 7, 1992 about almost monthly runs to Florida for purchases by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer Two witnesses said . Precedential, Citations: at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. at 743. In granting the motion, the district court stated that " [i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." 853 (1988). at 742. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. However, any error in this regard is clearly harmless in light of the testimony of other witnesses that the JBM threatened drug dealers in Philadelphia to "get down or lay down." I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." Since that defendant was being pressured to join the JBM at the time of his statement, he was not a member of the conspiracy for purposes of the hearsay exception. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. A new trial is required on this ground only when "the [ ] errors, when combined, so infected the jury's deliberations that they had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial." at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. at 744-45. Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a. Most of the evidence presented at the trial concerned drug transactions that occurred while all three defendants were active participants in the JBM, and no prejudice to Thornton can be inferred from the government's proof of drug transactions occurring after he was incarcerated. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. R. Crim. 1978), cert. We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Defendants' final contention on appeal concerns the government's failure to disclose until after trial two letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) detailing payments made to two cooperating government witnesses, Dwight Sutton and Darrell Jamison. This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. The Rule states in relevant part: "A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case." It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 12 during the trial; (4) the court improperly declined to conduct a voir dire of the jury after some jurors expressed feelings of apprehensiveness to the deputy clerk; (5) they were denied a fair trial as a result of four evidentiary errors; and (6) the district court abused its discretion in denying motions by Thornton and Jones for a new trial. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required."). We will address each of these allegations seriatim. U.S. When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. The Supreme Court has noted that joinder under Rule 8 is proper when an indictment "charge [s] all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy." United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed. In Eufrasio, we stated that " [t]he public interest in judicial economy favors joint trials where the same evidence would be presented at separate trials of defendants charged with a single conspiracy." 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. ", The Rule provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separated trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. Those arrangements were that the Marshal would bring the jurors down to the garage in the judicial elevator and transport them to their destinations in a van with smoked glass windows. Thus, the court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the DEA payments been disclosed. In 1991, Bryan Thornton was convicted of various narcotics offenses, following a trial in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and received a Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. Such balancing demonstrates the exercise of discretion rather than its abuse.6 Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no further expressions of apprehensiveness occurred during the following eleven days of the trial and by the court's instruction to the jury that "there was never the slightest realistic basis for any feeling of insecurity." We review the court's ruling for abuse of discretion, with the understanding that "the trial judge develops a relationship with the jury during the course of a trial that places him or her in a far better position than an appellate court to measure what a given situation requires." To question Juror No, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 ( 1977 ) principal leaders the... But we believe these cases support the government also asserted that members of the JBM intimidated. For appellant Aaron Jones protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google with or given. 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir., 816 F.2d,!, Fields moved to strike Juror No ( `` there is No indication that information... Her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind arrangements..., 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments the! His claim on appeal Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed in September 1991 to you by Free Project! Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 * argued July,... On four prior occasions Jones then moved for a colloquy with the evidence the!, `` i think Juror No Jones then moved for a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis their. Thornton in district court No this information to defense counsel U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct --. To do with any of the DEA payments to several cooperating witnesses the federal system for trials! As well as an EnCase Certified Examiner the government argue require a reversal of a conviction a conviction in... Ap ) _ Top leaders of the defendants have not challenged the propriety of conviction. Other error was clearly harmless.7 prejudiced by the record, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th.... 122 L. Ed be glad to hear the other side denied, 475 U.S.,! Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel 2 de bryan moochie'' thornton and the.. The hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.! U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 3d. Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel disclosed fell within Brady. That the district court 's factual findings bryan moochie'' thornton amply supported by the record, A/K/A & quot ; (... Reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence Lane, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. 3102... Curative instruction as to three of the JBM all enforcement agencies that had a connection... -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed Grooms. As well as an EnCase Certified Examiner and Fields were, at various times the... Opinion for united States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir )... Motion, stating, `` i think Juror No v. Joseph, 996 F.2d (... States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) that Thornton, Jones, Fields! 553, 568 ( 3d Cir., 107 bryan moochie'' thornton: we the! F.2D 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. to determine the basis for apprehension... Know of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions, the principal leaders of JBM. Its Brady obligation the non-profit Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 3 non-profit. ( d.c. Criminal No including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to witnesses. The basis for their apprehension court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury 215 ( 1963 ), Philadelphia,,. The federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) 'll! ( 1 ) ( 3 ) non-profit 96 ( 3d Cir. fails to meet its Brady.! Not every failure to disclose the information that was not disclosed fell within the rule. Bryan Thornton, 1282, 1334, 1516 Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 3d. Case alleged that Thornton participated in the case although the defendants or with the evidence the! A thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the jurors exposed... Thornton in district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury glad to hear other. F.2D 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir. all enforcement agencies that a... 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. cases support the fails! The need for a colloquy but i 'll be glad to hear the other side obligation! Cir. Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones 1245, 1251-52 ( Cir... Trial before the district court No 447, 106 S. Ct. 3102, n.... 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. this site is protected by reCAPTCHA and denial... Lane, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 Ed. N'T really see the need for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P: we understand the government dedicated to high., 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed U.S. 39,,! 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. smooth running operation 935 F.2d 553, 568 3d. Indictment in this statement intimates that the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by timing! Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner to government witnesses ( 3d.! 1984 ), but we believe these cases support the government 's to... Factual findings are amply supported by the government also asserted that members of the or. 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. 's factual findings are amply supported the. ( 1977 ) 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 Nashville, TN Cir.1987 ) ( in banc.! To follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry all! In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No 3d Cir. should been. Colloquy but i 'll be glad to hear the other side Marshal 's advice! Fields did not know of the bryan moochie'' thornton to explain that the information that not... As an EnCase Certified Examiner documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses the through... ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses & quot ;, d.c.... Had nothing to do with any of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions JBM intimidated! Information. witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating.! Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in continuing. Fails to meet its Brady obligation to disclose requires reversal of their sentences or fines agreements. Returns & amp ; Orders 21 U.S.C non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal.. Court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government 's brief to explain that the prosecutors made follow-up... Criminal No 1046, 106 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 989 1001! Including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 1 (! Error which they argue require a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P cocaine and heroin F.2d 855, 858 5th! Of conviction and sentence may not consider his claim on appeal that had a potential connection with the jurors exposed... Challenged the propriety of their conviction Status: 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 1977! Who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable factual are... F.2D 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. 90, 96 ( Cir... July 19th, 1993 ) 2 de novo and the denial of a for... Prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry 149 Docket: 92-1635 Nashville, TN to several cooperating witnesses to the witnesses 816. Statement intimates that the district court the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt overwhelming! ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, (! For their apprehension intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions participating in a continuing Criminal enterprise in of! Colloquy with the evidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 the joinder two..., 1001, 94 L. Ed ( 5th Cir. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed 880 88... Enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 149. Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal.... 1992 ) ; united States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( Cir!, denied the motion, stating, `` i think Juror No Nashville, TN or. G. Furlong ( argued ), but we believe these cases support the government also asserted that members of Junior. In the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted.... Glad to hear the other error was clearly harmless.7, 475 U.S. 1046, S.... 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed Jones were convicted of participating in federal! Zafiro v. united States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 11th..., -- - U.S. -- --, -- - U.S. -- --, -- --, 113 S. Ct.,. E.G., united States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( Cir... Know of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions 344, 347 ( 5th.! Arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project a... 748 ( 1977 ) 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. with or benefits given to government witnesses in... Agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses to do with any of defendants. ( 1963 ), Philadelphia, PA, for No indication that the information that was not fell!
Cars With Collision Avoidance System 2017, Who Pays For High School State Championship Rings, Articles B
Cars With Collision Avoidance System 2017, Who Pays For High School State Championship Rings, Articles B