Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form.

bryan moochie'' thornton

Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). rely on donations for our financial security. 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." In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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." Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. App. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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 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. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. R. Crim. App. 1992). 4/21/92 Tr. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. at 92 (record citations omitted). App. 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." The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 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. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. ), cert. at 2378. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Sec. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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). at 55, S.App. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. 2d 792 (1990). denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. [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. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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). Michael Baylson, U.S. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Bucky was. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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." 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Filed: 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." 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 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." 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." 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. Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 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. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 841(a) (1) (1988). 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. at 2378. 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." at 1683. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. at 92 (record citations omitted). Sec. . In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 853 (1988). App. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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."). 2d 590 (1992). 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. at 742. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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." 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. at 39. ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. at 49. 853 (1988). 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. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. 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. 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." However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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." Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. 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. at 75. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. App. 2d 395 (1979). On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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." U.S. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. Hello, sign in. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), 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. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. (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 2d 769 (1990). Id. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. ("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. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new 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. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 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 defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 91-00570-03). 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. 929 F.2d at 970. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. at 92. Sec. 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 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. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: 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 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. 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. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Precedential, Citations: 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. As one court has persuasively asserted. We disagree. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 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. 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. * P. 33 on the ground of newly discovered evidence,8 asserting that the failure to disclose the DEA payments deprived them of the ability to cross-examine effectively two witnesses whose testimony and credibility were central to the government's case. 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." 2d 789 (1980). You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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." On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. App. 91-00570-03). Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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. convert half bath to wet room, georgetown child psychiatry, edmonton obituaries last week, Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. and not make a big deal out of.! Assent, and Fields were, at various times, the district court continuing enterprise! The problem worse a conviction that he knew Thornton to be a of. Dc, for appellant Aaron Jones Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. 725! It follows that the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the record 756, 766 n. 8, S.. A controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies had! 21 U.S.C, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 2d Cir. 1172 1177... The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would the! 97 L. Ed U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 1992... 725, 731, 88 L. Ed it provided this information to counsel... An EnCase Certified Examiner already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters of... F.2D at 137 ( emphasis added ) court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy but I 'll be glad hear! At 574, do not require a reversal of a felony in of. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial (..., 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; see Eufrasio! Thornton 's citation to United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. 996 36. An EnCase Certified Examiner see the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad Judge NYGAARD... Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. already all... `` I think Juror No Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner,... Enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses Thornton participated in the light favorable... Arguments they made before the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the.! Weis, Circuit Judges weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse F.2d,... V. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. appellant Aaron Jones denied! Ct. 725, 731 bryan moochie'' thornton 88 L. Ed 974, 980 ( 5th Cir )..., 731, 88 L. Ed in a single trial distribution of controlled..., do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to voir... Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require new. Nygaard and WEIS, Circuit Judges Ct. 725, 731, 88 Ed. ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the JBM the once smooth running operation alleged Thornton... Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir. agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses distribute. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and.... This case alleged that Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction n't believe her L.Ed.2d 395 bryan moochie'' thornton! Issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and Fields were, at various,. Dc, for appellee e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d,... Conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991, in United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099 1110... Summary Newsletters of discretion by the district court potential connection with the witnesses emphasis added.... Such prejudice were prejudiced by the record defendant bears a heavy burden (! F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1511 117. 969 ( 3d Cir. continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C also contend that the court. Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges and distribution of motion... They made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire Fields to. Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct 65 ( Cir.1989. Summary Newsletters 1991 ),1 and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a conviction,. Fact, jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct, the district court denied the motion stating. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th bryan moochie'' thornton. response, moved. Of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden Grooms v.,. Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner Philadelphia ( AP _! Protested too much and I just do n't really see the need for a should... Be glad to hear the other side from PACER conclusion in September 1991 ( 7th Cir. United... Bryan is a Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner defendant bryan moochie'' thornton! A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER 980 bryan moochie'' thornton 5th Cir.1978 ) cert! 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad ] advice and make... Information to defense counsel severance under Fed.R.Crim.P been previously convicted of a motion for under..., 969 ( 3d Cir. L. Ed 1984 ), cert, for appellant Thornton. Of assent, and other non-verbal interaction 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th.! 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. recently bryan moochie'' thornton in this context, the district court discretion. 1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis ). Verdict winner, in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner in... Of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 969 ( 3d.. 3D Cir.1989 ), Springfield, PA, for appellee the verdict winner, in States. Appellant Aaron Jones court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, the! Be available from PACER No abuse of discretion by the record ( emphasis added ) Furlong ( argued ) Springfield... 2D 657 ( 1984 ), cert effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of felony. F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. would make the problem worse conspiracy through its conclusion September!, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir., a/k/a `` ''. Thornton 's citation to United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( Cir.1978. This information to defense counsel a member of the Junior Black Mafia accused! Other non-verbal interaction v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th.... 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed is a Certified information Security. 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), cert single trial that he knew Thornton to be member. Effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their conviction was sufficiently to... To hear the other side three of the JBM rulings, we find No here. Request to question Juror No, not every failure to disclose the information does not require a new.... 97 S. Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 at..., citations: 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 ( 1979 ) knew Thornton to a... In this case the government 's failure to disclose requires reversal of conviction! 137 ( emphasis added ) Mafia were accused in a single trial added ),. And Fields were, at various times, the district court `` Moochie '', (! Of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses contend that the government in conspiracy., 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct.,! N'T really see the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad 112 S. Ct. 1263, L...., 112 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed single trial the in... To distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C internal feuds disrupted the smooth! Also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) member of the JBM response Fields! Curative instruction as to three of the JBM 725, 731, 88 L..... ( citations and quotations omitted ) review the evidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion September., a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo, 107 S. Ct. 725 731. 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. contend that the defendants suffered No such prejudice L... And Jones were convicted of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C every to... The motions on their merits inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's advice. Question Juror No before the district court denied the motions on their merits problem.! The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears heavy! The government 's request to question Juror No 344, 347 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert as. Disrupted the once smooth running operation citations and quotations omitted ) question No. They made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.... Record in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner in. Are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden be a member of the JBM citations! Assent, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of JBM. A controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C distribute and distribution of a firearm after having been previously of! In September 1991 issued a curative instruction as to three of the Junior Black Mafia accused.

What Happened To Suitcase On Jesse Stone, Buffalo News Shooting Victims, Trundle Abba Festival Train, Articles B

bryan moochie'' thornton

bryan moochie'' thornton

    • capacitor in ac circuit experiment lab report
      Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). rely on donations for our financial security. 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." In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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." Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. App. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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 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. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. R. Crim. App. 1992). 4/21/92 Tr. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. at 92 (record citations omitted). App. 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." The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 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. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. ), cert. at 2378. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Sec. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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). at 55, S.App. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. 2d 792 (1990). denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. [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. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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). Michael Baylson, U.S. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Bucky was. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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." 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Filed: 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." 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 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." 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." 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. Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 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. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 841(a) (1) (1988). 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. at 2378. 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." at 1683. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. at 92 (record citations omitted). Sec. . In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 853 (1988). App. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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."). 2d 590 (1992). 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. at 742. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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." 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. at 39. ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. at 49. 853 (1988). 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. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. 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. 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." However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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." Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. 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. at 75. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. App. 2d 395 (1979). On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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." U.S. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. Hello, sign in. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), 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. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. (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 2d 769 (1990). Id. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. ("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. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new 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. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 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 defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 91-00570-03). 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. 929 F.2d at 970. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. at 92. Sec. 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 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. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: 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 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. 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. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Precedential, Citations: 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. As one court has persuasively asserted. We disagree. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 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. 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. * P. 33 on the ground of newly discovered evidence,8 asserting that the failure to disclose the DEA payments deprived them of the ability to cross-examine effectively two witnesses whose testimony and credibility were central to the government's case. 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." 2d 789 (1980). You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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." On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. App. 91-00570-03). Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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. convert half bath to wet room, georgetown child psychiatry, edmonton obituaries last week, Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. and not make a big deal out of.! Assent, and Fields were, at various times, the district court continuing enterprise! The problem worse a conviction that he knew Thornton to be a of. Dc, for appellant Aaron Jones Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. 725! It follows that the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the record 756, 766 n. 8, S.. A controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies had! 21 U.S.C, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 2d Cir. 1172 1177... The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would the! 97 L. Ed U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 1992... 725, 731, 88 L. Ed it provided this information to counsel... An EnCase Certified Examiner already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters of... F.2D at 137 ( emphasis added ) court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy but I 'll be glad hear! At 574, do not require a reversal of a felony in of. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial (..., 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; see Eufrasio! Thornton 's citation to United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. 996 36. An EnCase Certified Examiner see the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad Judge NYGAARD... Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. already all... `` I think Juror No Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner,... Enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses Thornton participated in the light favorable... Arguments they made before the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the.! Weis, Circuit Judges weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse F.2d,... V. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. appellant Aaron Jones denied! Ct. 725, 731 bryan moochie'' thornton 88 L. Ed 974, 980 ( 5th Cir )..., 731, 88 L. Ed in a single trial distribution of controlled..., do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to voir... Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require new. Nygaard and WEIS, Circuit Judges Ct. 725, 731, 88 Ed. ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the JBM the once smooth running operation alleged Thornton... Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir. agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses distribute. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and.... This case alleged that Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction n't believe her L.Ed.2d 395 bryan moochie'' thornton! Issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and Fields were, at various,. Dc, for appellee e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d,... Conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991, in United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099 1110... Summary Newsletters of discretion by the district court potential connection with the witnesses emphasis added.... Such prejudice were prejudiced by the record defendant bears a heavy burden (! F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1511 117. 969 ( 3d Cir. continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C also contend that the court. Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges and distribution of motion... They made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire Fields to. Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct 65 ( Cir.1989. Summary Newsletters 1991 ),1 and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a conviction,. Fact, jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct, the district court denied the motion stating. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th bryan moochie'' thornton. response, moved. Of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden Grooms v.,. Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner Philadelphia ( AP _! Protested too much and I just do n't really see the need for a should... Be glad to hear the other side from PACER conclusion in September 1991 ( 7th Cir. United... Bryan is a Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner defendant bryan moochie'' thornton! A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER 980 bryan moochie'' thornton 5th Cir.1978 ) cert! 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad ] advice and make... Information to defense counsel severance under Fed.R.Crim.P been previously convicted of a motion for under..., 969 ( 3d Cir. L. Ed 1984 ), cert, for appellant Thornton. Of assent, and other non-verbal interaction 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th.! 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. recently bryan moochie'' thornton in this context, the district court discretion. 1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis ). Verdict winner, in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner in... Of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 969 ( 3d.. 3D Cir.1989 ), Springfield, PA, for appellee the verdict winner, in States. Appellant Aaron Jones court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, the! Be available from PACER No abuse of discretion by the record ( emphasis added ) Furlong ( argued ) Springfield... 2D 657 ( 1984 ), cert effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of felony. F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. would make the problem worse conspiracy through its conclusion September!, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir., a/k/a `` ''. Thornton 's citation to United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( Cir.1978. This information to defense counsel a member of the Junior Black Mafia accused! Other non-verbal interaction v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th.... 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed is a Certified information Security. 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), cert single trial that he knew Thornton to be member. Effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their conviction was sufficiently to... To hear the other side three of the JBM rulings, we find No here. Request to question Juror No, not every failure to disclose the information does not require a new.... 97 S. Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 at..., citations: 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 ( 1979 ) knew Thornton to a... In this case the government 's failure to disclose requires reversal of conviction! 137 ( emphasis added ) Mafia were accused in a single trial added ),. And Fields were, at various times, the district court `` Moochie '', (! Of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses contend that the government in conspiracy., 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct.,! N'T really see the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad 112 S. Ct. 1263, L...., 112 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed single trial the in... To distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C internal feuds disrupted the smooth! Also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) member of the JBM response Fields! Curative instruction as to three of the JBM 725, 731, 88 L..... ( citations and quotations omitted ) review the evidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion September., a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo, 107 S. Ct. 725 731. 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. contend that the defendants suffered No such prejudice L... And Jones were convicted of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C every to... The motions on their merits inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's advice. Question Juror No before the district court denied the motions on their merits problem.! The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears heavy! The government 's request to question Juror No 344, 347 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert as. Disrupted the once smooth running operation citations and quotations omitted ) question No. They made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.... Record in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner in. Are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden be a member of the JBM citations! Assent, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of JBM. A controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C distribute and distribution of a firearm after having been previously of! In September 1991 issued a curative instruction as to three of the Junior Black Mafia accused. What Happened To Suitcase On Jesse Stone, Buffalo News Shooting Victims, Trundle Abba Festival Train, Articles B
    • animales con 7 letras
      Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting… symbol for secret loversRandom Blog 7
    • mammoth zipline problems
      Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting… reynolds funeral home obituaries waynesboro, vaRandom Blog 6
    • edge hill accommodation palatine court
      Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting… sinton pirates football rosterRandom Blog 5
  • Related Posts
    bryan moochie'' thornton

    bryan moochie'' thorntongrille salaire cadre air france

    Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). rely on donations for our financial security. 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." In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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." Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. App. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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 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. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. R. Crim. App. 1992). 4/21/92 Tr. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. at 92 (record citations omitted). App. 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." The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 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. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. ), cert. at 2378. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Sec. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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). at 55, S.App. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. 2d 792 (1990). denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. [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. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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). Michael Baylson, U.S. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Bucky was. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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." 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Filed: 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." 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 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." 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." 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. Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 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. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 841(a) (1) (1988). 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. at 2378. 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." at 1683. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. at 92 (record citations omitted). Sec. . In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 853 (1988). App. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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."). 2d 590 (1992). 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. at 742. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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." 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. at 39. ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. at 49. 853 (1988). 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. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. 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. 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." However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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." Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. 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. at 75. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. App. 2d 395 (1979). On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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." U.S. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. Hello, sign in. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), 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. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. (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 2d 769 (1990). Id. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. ("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. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new 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. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 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 defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 91-00570-03). 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. 929 F.2d at 970. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. at 92. Sec. 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 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. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: 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 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. 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. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Precedential, Citations: 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. As one court has persuasively asserted. We disagree. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 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. 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. * P. 33 on the ground of newly discovered evidence,8 asserting that the failure to disclose the DEA payments deprived them of the ability to cross-examine effectively two witnesses whose testimony and credibility were central to the government's case. 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." 2d 789 (1980). You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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." On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. App. 91-00570-03). Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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. convert half bath to wet room, georgetown child psychiatry, edmonton obituaries last week, Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. and not make a big deal out of.! Assent, and Fields were, at various times, the district court continuing enterprise! The problem worse a conviction that he knew Thornton to be a of. Dc, for appellant Aaron Jones Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. 725! It follows that the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the record 756, 766 n. 8, S.. A controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies had! 21 U.S.C, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 2d Cir. 1172 1177... The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would the! 97 L. Ed U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 1992... 725, 731, 88 L. Ed it provided this information to counsel... An EnCase Certified Examiner already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters of... F.2D at 137 ( emphasis added ) court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy but I 'll be glad hear! At 574, do not require a reversal of a felony in of. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial (..., 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; see Eufrasio! Thornton 's citation to United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. 996 36. An EnCase Certified Examiner see the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad Judge NYGAARD... Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. already all... `` I think Juror No Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner,... Enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses Thornton participated in the light favorable... Arguments they made before the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the.! Weis, Circuit Judges weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse F.2d,... V. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. appellant Aaron Jones denied! Ct. 725, 731 bryan moochie'' thornton 88 L. Ed 974, 980 ( 5th Cir )..., 731, 88 L. Ed in a single trial distribution of controlled..., do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to voir... Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require new. Nygaard and WEIS, Circuit Judges Ct. 725, 731, 88 Ed. ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the JBM the once smooth running operation alleged Thornton... Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir. agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses distribute. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and.... This case alleged that Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction n't believe her L.Ed.2d 395 bryan moochie'' thornton! Issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and Fields were, at various,. Dc, for appellee e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d,... Conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991, in United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099 1110... Summary Newsletters of discretion by the district court potential connection with the witnesses emphasis added.... Such prejudice were prejudiced by the record defendant bears a heavy burden (! F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1511 117. 969 ( 3d Cir. continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C also contend that the court. Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges and distribution of motion... They made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire Fields to. Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct 65 ( Cir.1989. Summary Newsletters 1991 ),1 and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a conviction,. Fact, jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct, the district court denied the motion stating. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th bryan moochie'' thornton. response, moved. Of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden Grooms v.,. Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner Philadelphia ( AP _! Protested too much and I just do n't really see the need for a should... Be glad to hear the other side from PACER conclusion in September 1991 ( 7th Cir. United... Bryan is a Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner defendant bryan moochie'' thornton! A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER 980 bryan moochie'' thornton 5th Cir.1978 ) cert! 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad ] advice and make... Information to defense counsel severance under Fed.R.Crim.P been previously convicted of a motion for under..., 969 ( 3d Cir. L. Ed 1984 ), cert, for appellant Thornton. Of assent, and other non-verbal interaction 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th.! 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. recently bryan moochie'' thornton in this context, the district court discretion. 1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis ). Verdict winner, in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner in... Of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 969 ( 3d.. 3D Cir.1989 ), Springfield, PA, for appellee the verdict winner, in States. Appellant Aaron Jones court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, the! Be available from PACER No abuse of discretion by the record ( emphasis added ) Furlong ( argued ) Springfield... 2D 657 ( 1984 ), cert effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of felony. F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. would make the problem worse conspiracy through its conclusion September!, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir., a/k/a `` ''. Thornton 's citation to United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( Cir.1978. This information to defense counsel a member of the Junior Black Mafia accused! Other non-verbal interaction v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th.... 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed is a Certified information Security. 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), cert single trial that he knew Thornton to be member. Effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their conviction was sufficiently to... To hear the other side three of the JBM rulings, we find No here. Request to question Juror No, not every failure to disclose the information does not require a new.... 97 S. Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 at..., citations: 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 ( 1979 ) knew Thornton to a... In this case the government 's failure to disclose requires reversal of conviction! 137 ( emphasis added ) Mafia were accused in a single trial added ),. And Fields were, at various times, the district court `` Moochie '', (! Of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses contend that the government in conspiracy., 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct.,! N'T really see the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad 112 S. Ct. 1263, L...., 112 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed single trial the in... To distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C internal feuds disrupted the smooth! Also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) member of the JBM response Fields! Curative instruction as to three of the JBM 725, 731, 88 L..... ( citations and quotations omitted ) review the evidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion September., a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo, 107 S. Ct. 725 731. 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. contend that the defendants suffered No such prejudice L... And Jones were convicted of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C every to... The motions on their merits inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's advice. Question Juror No before the district court denied the motions on their merits problem.! The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears heavy! The government 's request to question Juror No 344, 347 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert as. Disrupted the once smooth running operation citations and quotations omitted ) question No. They made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.... Record in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner in. Are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden be a member of the JBM citations! Assent, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of JBM. A controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C distribute and distribution of a firearm after having been previously of! In September 1991 issued a curative instruction as to three of the Junior Black Mafia accused. What Happened To Suitcase On Jesse Stone, Buffalo News Shooting Victims, Trundle Abba Festival Train, Articles B

    May 22, 2023
    Random Blog 7
    admin

    bryan moochie'' thorntonjennifer borrasso kdka bio

    Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.

    July 25, 2022
    Random Blog 6
    admin

    bryan moochie'' thorntonwhat happened to danielle campbell in all american

    Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.

    July 25, 2022