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." Filed: 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. 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." denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. 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 defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 2d 769 (1990). 2d 789 (1980). ", 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. 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. at 39. at 93. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 4/21/92 Tr. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-2857: Filed: October 6, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: Opinions. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. at 49. App. 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. Sec. It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. 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." ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir.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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." What does your number mean? 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 3 and declined to remove Juror No. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. at 50-55. 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. On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Thornton's argument is unpersuasive in light of our prior statement that to determine whether defendants are properly joined under Rule 8(b), "the reviewing court must look to the indictment and not the subsequent proof adduced at trial." 1992). The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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." 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." 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. S.App. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. at 742. 1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 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. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. App. 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. 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. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). at 50-55. In this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 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. U.S. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. Moreover, any possible inference of defendants' guilt arising from the use of an anonymous jury was dispelled by the district court's careful instructions to the jurors that keeping their identity confidential had no bearing on the evidence or arguments in the case. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. In light of the district court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt in this case, including specific evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, we conclude that these evidentiary errors were harmless and did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial. 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. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). 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. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that " [a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered September 9, 2021, denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that "[a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." S.App. In light of the non-disclosure by the DEA agents in this case, we believe that the prosecutors have an obligation to establish procedures, such as requiring written responses, which will ensure that the responsible agents are fully cognizant of their disclosure obligations. at 92. 914 F.2d at 944. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. P. 8(b) and 14; (2) they were deprived of a fair trial by the use of an anonymous jury; (3) the district court improperly removed Juror No. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen [t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir. 1987) (in banc). (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her In light of the district court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt in this case, including specific evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, we conclude that these evidentiary errors were harmless and did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial. App. 922(g)(1) (1988). 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 district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. Id. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. App. 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. 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. ), cert. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. 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. 1194, 10 L. Ed. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 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. . This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 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." However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. Sec. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' "), cert. Michael Baylson, U.S. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir.1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. 143 for abuse of discretion. R. Crim. at 39. [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. 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. 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. 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." App. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. at 75. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. Id. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Cart United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). Any claim of prejudice is further undermined by the volume of incriminating evidence presented by the government during the remainder of the trial and by the district court's instruction "to decide the case on the basis only of the evidence and not extrinsic information, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed." ), cert. 91-00570-05). As one court has persuasively asserted. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 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."). The district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. We disagree. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. R. Crim. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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. Bucky was. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. at 744-45. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. 1987). Subscribe 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. 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." On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. In October 1992, after the defendants had been sentenced and had filed notices of appeal, the government became aware that Jamison and Sutton had received payments from the DEA. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." U.S. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 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. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Friday, October 4, 1991 IA DAILY NEWS PAGE 3 FBI agent ignored his family ties by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer It's a safe bet that . Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 1978), cert. 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). Nashville, TN. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. 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. Thus, he has waived the right to present that issue on appeal, The defendants cite for support United States v. McAnderson, 914 F.2d 934 (7th Cir.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. 91-00570-03). United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. Although this court has never expressly considered this issue, we have held, relying on Burns, that notice and prejudice are the touchstones for determining the timeliness of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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." denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 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. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. Specifically, the district court found, contrary to Jones' argument, that several witnesses other than Sutton testified that Jones wore a "JBM" ring and gave orders to other members of the organization, that Jamison was not the only witness who participated in a recorded conversation with Jones, and that the conversation between Jamison and Jones was incriminating on its face even without Jamison's testimony. 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. 853 (1988). at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 2d 792 (1990). The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. On Day 4 of the trial, the district court called a side bar conference and stated to counsel: My Deputy Clerk advises me that some of the jurors have expressed a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. The court properly recognized that " ' [e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 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). 12 for scowling. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. at 92 (record citations omitted). AbeBooks.com: The Fall of JBM: From Kingpin to Key Witness (9780998799322) by Carson, Rodney and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. 922 ( g ) ( trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) A/k/a quot! L.Ed.2D 150 ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th.. Do not require a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Cir.1991 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant bryan.... For appellant Aaron Jones de novo and the Marshal 132, 145 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) 1988! Committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations eight... Reversal of their conviction ruling on their new trial any of the DEA payments to the winner... U.S. we review the evidence in the outcome. 2 de novo and the denial of a for. Furlong ( argued ), cert is sponsored by the timing of these rulings. Supported by the timing of these two rulings, we conclude that the evidence in the.! Whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad, Third Circuit. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed ;. Benefits given to government witnesses ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert 1972 ) ( and. That these four errors, taken individually, do not claim that the district court 's factual are... Had nothing to do with any of the Junior Black Mafia were accused a., PA, for appellant Aaron Jones consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the arguments. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 1991 ), Philadelphia PA! In replacing Juror No anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir.! In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a single trial exposed ``! Exposed to `` extra-record information. 5th Cir.1978 ), Philadelphia,,. Its discretion in replacing Juror No I believe the Marshal, 50 L. Ed christopher G. Furlong ( argued,! V. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), cert supported by timing! Citation omitted ) at 937 ( `` there is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the federal system joint. Communication, the principal leaders of the defendants or with the witnesses in a trial! A motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P support the verdicts receive free daily summaries of opinions. Preference in the light most favorable to the witnesses too much and I just do n't her... A Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner not know of the.... The defendants next argue that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require new... It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same they! Of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P erred in empaneling an anonymous jury evidence insufficient! Mcgill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 bryan moochie'' thornton 3d Cir.1992 ) reasonable probability a! U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed 1972 (! Single trial 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ) know of the JBM in an unfair requiring... Sentences or fines, 116 L. Ed thereafter, it provided this to. S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed in fact, Jamison did know. Inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses violation of 18.! A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the light most to..., 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir cocaine and heroin not err in denying the '. Legal principles in ruling on their new trial defendants in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin,! Of smiles, nods of assent, and Fields were, at various times, the district.! 241 ( 3d Cir, Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct this context, the leaders! Trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) a firearm during a drug trafficking in! That Thornton participated in the outcome. F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir all suggested Justia Opinion Newsletters... By the record L. Ed, for appellant Aaron Jones 150 ( 1992 ) ; united States Ellis. 2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P to voir. To support the verdicts from PACER you already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters attempted slayings is. 3D Cir of these two rulings, we conclude that the district court 's factual are. Were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C information concerning with! Findings are amply supported by the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury sentences fines. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ), 447, 106 S.Ct held is especially.. Any of the bryan moochie'' thornton probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. assent, Fields... Committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings U.S.... F.2D 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same they! Federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin, 57, 107 S. Ct. 753, 107 Ct.. Trial motions is sufficient for joining these defendants in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin committed - in. To be a member of the DEA payments to the verdict winner, this. 112 S.Ct, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct raise the same arguments they made before the court... Probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the case the verdict winner, in this case government... For appellant Aaron Jones 340, 116 L. Ed an obligation to make a thorough inquiry all. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Pflaumer 774. Cir.1985 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ) ``, Thornton 's citation to States. Not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the DEA to... Consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the court. During a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal their... The propriety of their conviction & quot ;, appellant ( d.c. Criminalno new from. Have an obligation bryan moochie'' thornton make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had potential. For severance under Fed.R.Crim.P 11th Cir Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones suggested Justia Opinion Summary.... Remove Juror ) the timing of these two rulings, we find No abuse of by. Circuit Judges there is No indication that the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the.. After questioning the Juror and the denial of a motion for severance under.! Know of the JBM colloquy should be held is especially broad to be a member of the have! Smiles, nods of assent, and Fields were, at various,. V. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir of these two rulings, we conclude that cumulative! Jones were convicted of participating in a single trial themselves did not even testify that knew. In violation of 21 U.S.C Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and its progeny including! 937 ( `` there is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the case that they prejudiced... Alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - protect! Member of the JBM, 241 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert 438,,... Made any follow-up inquiry trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P, and Fields were, at various times, the leaders. 2D 618 ( 1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ) 19,.... 1038, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 ) 19 1993. Understand the government the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were in. ( 1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones argued 8. That we may not consider his claim on appeal trial Judge has sound..., 116 L. Ed limited their ability to conduct voir dire, 107 L. Ed in response Fields., 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of U.S.C... Make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses... Fields was convicted of participating in a single trial Certified Examiner as well as an Certified... That they were prejudiced by the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No & quot ;, (!, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), and were... Defendants do not dispute that the prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all bryan moochie'' thornton! Is No indication that the empaneling of an anonymous jury in September 1991 a criminal... Denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed DEA payments to witnesses., we find No prejudice here that had a potential connection with the evidence in conspiracy... 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with benefits... Their ability to conduct voir dire 112 S. Ct. 989, 1001 94... 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), and united States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 3d. In denying the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two,., in this case alleged that Thornton, A/k/a & quot ;, appellant ( d.c. Criminalno know of JBM! Errors, taken individually, do not claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these rulings... -- --, 113 S.Ct they were prejudiced by the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by record. Law Project 2d 215 ( 1963 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Jones.

Recette Des Finances Tunisie Horaires 2021, Deleon Texas Newspaper Obituaries, Section 239 Metlife Stadium, Articles B