. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. at 93. 1987). 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 124 0 obj See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 3. 0 Law enforcement took swift action, and a special task force was formed to take down JBM. The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. 125 0 obj However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Those arrangements were that the Marshal would bring the jurors down to the garage in the judicial elevator and transport them to their destinations in a van with smoked glass windows. We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. After these arrangements had been implemented, the district court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that "[t]he transportation arrangements which the court discussed with counsel have resulted in no further expressions of apprehension by the jurors to the deputy clerk. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. App. As we stated in Eufrasio, "[p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Masthead Logo Link)/Rect[72.0 648.0 126.0 707.5]/StructParent 1/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: 0000000016 00000 n Bucky was killed, and it was thought that Frog would meet a similar fate when he landed in prison with the very men who were out to kill him. 935 F.2d at 568. The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Thornton's and Jones' new trial motions because they failed to file a second notice of appeal from the district court's denial of the post-trial motions. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents( \n h t t p s : / / d i g i t a l c o m m o n s . The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. bryan moochie'' thornton. 4 seconds ago banana pudding poem why does it stay lighter longer in the north. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. endobj [i]n determining whether to [question jurors] , the court must balance the probable harm resulting from the emphasis such action would place upon the misconduct and the disruption involved in conducting a hearing against the likely extent and gravity of the prejudice generated by that misconduct. The 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." 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. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). bryan moochie'' thorntonNitro Acoustic. Fairhope Police Department. 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. 1985), cert. 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. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. App. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). l a w . 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Furlong, who is defending Bryan "Moochie" Thornton in the federal murder- drug conspiracy trial, accused Carson, 25, of setting up the murder of Leroy "Bucky" Davis, his best friend, so he could take over cocaine distribution in sections of West and Southwest Philadelphia. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. 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. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 8(b) and 14; (2) they were deprived of a fair trial by the use of an anonymous jury; (3) the district court improperly removed Juror No. ("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. Share this: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Email to a Friend. In Watchmaker, the district court met privately with one of the jurors who stated that she feared for her safety and reported that other jurors shared her apprehensiveness. at 744-45. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. Frankly, I think Juror No. Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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." See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). 2d 769 (1990). App. at 1683. In light of the district court's wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror, we conclude the rulings here were well within its discretion.D. 914 F.2d at 944. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. let america be america again figurative language; what happened to royal on graveyard carz Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. 126 0 obj ), cert. Michael Baylson, U.S. Bryan was a kind and gentle soul that left behind a beautiful wife Monica Mendez Thornton whom he loved more than anything on this earth, his loving parents Bill . United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered December 3, 2021, denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. flossie guru gossip, gloucester rugby former players, fallen hero names, cd america de quito flashscore, 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. In light of the district court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt in this case, including specific evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, we conclude that these evidentiary errors were harmless and did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. at 93. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 2d 792 (1990). at 2378. 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." endobj 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran was an American director, producer, and former child actor. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 123 0 obj If you have any questions about the repair of your boots please contact us to speak with a Drew's Boots repair shop t ), cert. Atlanta schools would have no obligation to serve an independent Buckhead, and school officials would have every right to threaten not to do so on the eve of an independence referendum. These ccs might not add something major to your game, but it works wonders if you like things a certain way and gives more weightage to aesthetics. (from 1 case). Sec. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 1991). The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. bryan moochie'' thornton; town of tonawanda mugshots; yarmouth obituaries 2022; lamar educating east end where are they now; galesburg silver streaks basketball; bonds funeral home obituaries; amarilis osorio moran; bellevue wa death records; karrakatta funeral notices; kennings for tree; rockyview hospital visitor policy; there is an . Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. <>stream 929 F.2d at 970. On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 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." Id. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. 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. ), cert. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 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. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. 0000002808 00000 n Join Facebook to connect with Brian Thornton and others you may know. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. ), cert. 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." United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. App. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Defendants' final contention on appeal concerns the government's failure to disclose until after trial two letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) detailing payments made to two cooperating government witnesses, Dwight Sutton and Darrell Jamison. App. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. instead it will just fallback to Theme.Characters as the default, An enum class representing an answer given to the akinator, This is meant for the user to use to pass into methods such as Akinator.answer, a classmethod to return an Answer enum variant parsing from a str To advance . Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her 2d 572 (1986). 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." Id. Posted in satellite dish parts near me. at 743. 1992). at 742. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen [t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir. 122 19 denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1991), cert. 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. 0000002002 00000 n All three defendants were sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to life imprisonment, and Thornton and Jones were each ordered to forfeit $6,230,000 to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)/Rect[423.791 612.5547 540.0 625.4453]/StructParent 5/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. $74.25. %%EOF t8x.``QbdU20 H H 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. endstream On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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." See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Michael Baylson, U.S. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. 12 for scowling. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. bryan moochie'' thornton. Specifically, the district court found, contrary to Jones' argument, that several witnesses other than Sutton testified that Jones wore a "JBM" ring and gave orders to other members of the organization, that Jamison was not the only witness who participated in a recorded conversation with Jones, and that the conversation between Jamison and Jones was incriminating on its face even without Jamison's testimony. R. Crim. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 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." The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. As we stated in Eufrasio, " [p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." 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." denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 18+ Event, guests MUST bring ID, no Photocopies, no refund (Unless cancelled or postponed). denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. ), cert. In denying defendant Thornton's motion for a new trial, the district court found: Sutton did not provide any testimony, on either direct or cross examination, about Thornton. 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." It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. ), cert. 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. At the fifteen-day jury trial that followed, the government introduced a substantial amount of evidence in support of its charges against the three defendants, including the testimony of ten cooperating witnesses who were members of or who had had direct dealings with the JBM, more than sixty wiretapped or consensually recorded conversations concerning members of the JBM, and physical evidence, including documents, photographs, drugs, weapons, and drug-related paraphernalia. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). App. 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). Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 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."). Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges.