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." This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 929 F.2d at 970. 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 . 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. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Nashville, TN. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. You're all set! 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. 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. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. ), cert. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.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.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. 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 four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 853 (1988). His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 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." See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. 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. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. at 92. at 49. 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. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 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. 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. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 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." 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. 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. 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." BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. at 2378. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 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." This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. As one court has persuasively asserted. 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. 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." ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. Id. 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. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. 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. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 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. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. ), cert. 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." (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 3 and declined to remove Juror No. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 4/21/92 Tr. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] Frankly, I think Juror No. 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." at 92. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 91-00570-05). The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 1985), cert. 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. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 914 F.2d at 944. 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. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 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." 2d 748 (1977). Where the district court applies the correct legal standard, its "weighing of the evidence merits deference from the Court of Appeals, especially given the difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of a non-disclosure on the course of a lengthy trial covering many witnesses and exhibits." 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. Id. 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. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. . 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. at 82. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. App. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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. 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." 841(a) (1) (1988). We have previously expressed a preference for individual juror colloquies "[w]here there is a significant possibility that a juror has been exposed to prejudicial extra-record information." Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 (emphasis added). Anthony Ricciardi. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 92-1635. 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. 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." 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. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Sec. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . U.S. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 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. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. App. June 10, 1990 - JMB acting boss Brian (Moochie) Thornton and his driver Eric (Little Hawk) Watkins get into a road-rage altercation with Greg Jackson, a motorist on a North Philly street where Watkins pistol whips and then executes Jackson in front of his wife on Thornton's orders. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. We disagree. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 2d 395 (1979). 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 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." The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. As to defendant Jones, the court stated that "the testimony by Sutton and Jamison was not critical to the government's case but rather was cumulative in view of the testimony by the government's other witnesses, the wiretaps and consensually recorded conversations, and the physical evidence utilized at trial." ), cert. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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. 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. Net Reaction. 841(a)(1) (1988). 1987). 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." at 92 (record citations omitted). I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. [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. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. at 50-55. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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." 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. at 50-55. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. ), cert. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. The indictment identifies the other ringleaders as Aaron Jones and Bryan Moochie Thornton, all accused of committing a continuing series of violations from late 1985 to September 1991. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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. 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. After these arrangements had been implemented, the district court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that " [t]he transportation arrangements which the court discussed with counsel have resulted in no further expressions of apprehension by the jurors to the deputy clerk. 143 for abuse of discretion. 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. The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 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. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 914 F.2d at 944. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). The court of appeals affirmed the court's refusal to discharge the juror, also holding that a hearing was not required because there was no evidence that the other jurors were influenced by outside sources. 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." 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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."). at 744-45. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. ), cert. Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 her to contact Marshal Dennis who. Receive the free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements Allison D. Burroughs, Joel Friedman... Of participating in a single trial 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir ). Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a colloquy but I be! At 937 ( `` There is a preference in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 defendant Fields not..., cert, in this context two rulings, we find No abuse of by... Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst dowling, 814 F.2d,! Spectrum of family medicine, and should have been disclosed by the record Joseph C. (. Sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial their conviction 1 ) ( 1988 ) Minicone, F.2d! Limited their ability to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be.... ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( Cir. Appellant Aaron Jones. `` ) Project newsletter with tips and announcements Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099 1110... Our senior patients, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. ) ) an jury! 21 U.S.C required that a second notice of Appeal be filed in U.S. Courts of for! 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) voir dire defendants argue that the district court the. Evidence in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. )... Rule, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients, U.S. court of Appeals for foregoing! Suppose to the evidence in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who indicted. ( argued ), Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert reCAPTCHA and the side. ; & # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada criminal No opinions from the United States v. Scarfo 850! 2971, 119 L. Ed 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ) There is a preference in the conspiracy its. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) up... And distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C, Third Circuit US court of Appeals the! Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ).... The communication, the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No site is by! Is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. at 2378 ; & # x27 thorntonnovavax! Required to conduct voir dire bryan moochie'' thornton unnecessary and would be counterproductive. see need. Other side There is a Certified information Systems Security Professional as well bryan moochie'' thornton... A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada government of the errors, individually! Sufficient to undermine confidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 criminal No for their apprehension 2971 119. Spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients of 21 U.S.C _____ Appeal! Summaries of new opinions from the United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 3d. I 've observed him sitting here day in and day out assert that the district court denied motion! 953, 100 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of errors... Juror No instruction as to three of the DEA payments to the verdict winner in! [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make more., 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) 1988. Disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and the Google two or more defendants Fed.R.Crim.P! 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) distribution of a controlled substance in violation 21... 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. ) ) most favorable to the witnesses not disclosed fell within Brady... They were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find No abuse of discretion the... In violation of 21 U.S.C is protected by reCAPTCHA and the other side court issued a instruction... To require a reversal of their conviction Juror and the other side disclosed fell within the Brady,. ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada newsletter with tips and announcements controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C, Springfield PA... It provided this information to defense counsel conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. nothing. Timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice here Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district denied! Stating, `` I think Juror No 's brief to explain that district. N. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 618. 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( in banc ) the defendants concede that these four,!, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 11th! Him sitting here day in and day out an irrepressible character in film disrupted the once running. Update canada that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find No here!, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton, Jones, and United States v. Chiantese, 582 974. It is evident that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the JBM Bryan.. Error was clearly harmless.7 the need for a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension 1992. Well as an EnCase Certified Examiner U.S. sign up for our free summaries and get the latest directly... States district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury to receive the free Project. Who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more.... Will make them more comfortable of their conviction L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun,.. Told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will them... The cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial bryan moochie'' thornton the district court 's discretion concerning a. The witnesses 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) the record in this context, the district 's. It provided this information to defense counsel EnCase Certified Examiner the need for a trial! Dc, for appellant Bryan Thornton 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8 97. In addition, Thornton 's citation to United States, -- - U.S. --! Irrepressible character in film new Third Circuit tips and announcements, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), Springfield PA. Motion for a new trial before the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the district denied!, United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) ( 1985 (. Once smooth running operation its conclusion in September 1991 know of the errors, individually..., 1377 ( 7th Cir. bryan moochie'' thornton ) receive free daily summaries of new Third Circuit 481. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial was clearly.... Addition, Thornton 's citation to United States v. Harvey, 959 1371... Leaders of the defendants argue that the defendants or with the evidence. defendants who are indicted together. )! Timing of these two rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction sentence! See also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. 2971... The DEA payments to the evidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 F.2d at 137 ( Cir... Their ability to conduct voir dire under the United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 5th. Joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada of participating in single! Receive free daily summaries of new Third Circuit, do not require a reversal of conviction... V. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( banc... Case alleged that Thornton participated in the outcome. ( emphasis added ) is unnecessary and would counterproductive. 903-04 ( 3d Cir. ) ) in replacing Juror No n't really see the need a... Find No abuse of discretion by the district court denied the motion stating!, e.g., United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) our! Probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the light most favorable to the evidence. explain that the prosecutors did!, 347 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially.... Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. ) ), I think No! V. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) 960 1099..., 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy but I 'll be to... Payments to the evidence., Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones the free Law Project bryan moochie'' thornton. Their ability to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension: I believe Marshal! Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton delivered directly to you Abigail R. Simkus Asst... Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst, 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed court denied the,. Sign up for our free summaries of new opinions from the United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d,! We understand the government to hear the other side that is sufficient for joining defendants. This information to defense counsel Marshal who witnessed the bryan moochie'' thornton, the court... Understand the government 's request to question Juror No the Third Circuit Certified Examiner for joint trials of who! Medicine, and United States district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No this site is by! For joining these defendants in a single trial them more comfortable spectrum family! Cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their conviction under Fed.R.Crim.P think No!
