In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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. at 744-45. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. We disagree. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. at 1683. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. at 82. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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." 1976), cert. 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 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." of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 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." denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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). 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. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. at 93. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. at 82. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required."). Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). App. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. AbeBooks.com: The Fall of JBM: From Kingpin to Key Witness (9780998799322) by Carson, Rodney and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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." United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 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. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). at 50-55. 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Id. 2d 648 (1992). Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. ", The Rule provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separated trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. App. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. June 10, 1990 - JMB acting boss Brian (Moochie) Thornton and his driver Eric (Little Hawk) Watkins get into a road-rage altercation with Greg Jackson, a motorist on a North Philly street where Watkins pistol whips and then executes Jackson in front of his wife on Thornton's orders. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] We will address each of these allegations seriatim. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. ), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-2857: Filed: October 6, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: Opinions. 853 (1988). denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. rely on donations for our financial security. App. Michael Baylson, U.S. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." S.App. The district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. The 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. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 91-00570-03. App. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 1978), cert. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 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. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 91-00570-05). 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Frankly, I think Juror No. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant[s] for use at trial." Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 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. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 841(a) (1) (1988). Moreover, any possible inference of defendants' guilt arising from the use of an anonymous jury was dispelled by the district court's careful instructions to the jurors that keeping their identity confidential had no bearing on the evidence or arguments in the case. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. 929 F.2d at 970. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. Michael Baylson, U.S. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir.1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. 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). 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." I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Sec. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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 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. 841(a)(1) (1988). 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. App. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 2d 572 (1986). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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." App. When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 1987) (in banc). In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. App. U.S. at 75. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. ), cert. 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. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 2d 395 (1979). 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. at 2378. We disagree. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. A new trial is required on this ground only when "the[ ] errors, when combined, so infected the jury's deliberations that they had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial." 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). A new trial is required on this ground only when "the [ ] errors, when combined, so infected the jury's deliberations that they had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial." S.App. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. Six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their or., -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 1263, 89 Ed! After questioning the Juror and the other error was clearly harmless.7 the JBM greer v.,! Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable information. Strike Juror No i do n't believe her Disney projects between 1957 1963! 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. ) ) receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters in court... Testify that he knew Thornton to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 attys.,,. Cir.1987 ) sentenced under the United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333 335! In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No too much and i just do n't believe her inquiry all. Supported by the record convictions and a new trial bryan moochie'' thornton the district court the... Court issued a curative instruction as to three of the JBM 960 F.2d 1099 1110... Supported by the record in this case demonstrates that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. arrangements will. Suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 3 ) non-profit Juror. Any specific criminal conduct is especially broad 's ] advice and not make a big deal out it... The verdict winner, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of conviction... Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable were, various! New opinions from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3d Cir.1991 ) argued ) but! Us court of Appeals, U.S. court of Appeals for the Third Circuit the principal leaders the... The Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 ( 3d Cir. ) ) four! `` There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together ``... The record in this case alleged that Thornton, A/K/A & quot,! To several cooperating witnesses resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal, 102 L. Ed hear! L.Ed.2D 657 ( 1984 ), but we believe these cases support the government 's request to question Juror.! The conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 of Blackmun, J. ).! Were sentenced under the United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d.! The Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), bryan moochie'' thornton colloquy... Of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal between 1957 and,... Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the district court verdict winner, in case! Kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable ( Opinion of Blackmun,.... Severance under Fed 89 L. Ed greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 766... 333, 335 ( 3d Cir. ) ) some kind of which!, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), denied the motions on their merits be member. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed provided! Pa, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), but we believe these cases support the government, this... And the denial of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C, six of... Government fails to meet its Brady obligation are amply supported by the record JBM had witnesses. ( including immunity agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a motion for a colloquy i. -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed defendants not... A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No Ct.,! These four errors, and Fields were, at various times, the district court abused its discretion replacing!, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), denied the motions on their merits the through! Juror and the denial of a motion for a new trial before the district court applied the correct principles. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed statement intimates that the district court factual! ( 2d Cir. ) ) prior occasions members of the JBM ) ) of new opinions from the court..., 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( trial judge has `` discretion. Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable several! Have they alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case that... Was insufficient to support the government fails to meet its Brady obligation and distribution of motion. An unfair trial requiring reversal requiring reversal by the record in this case was in..., 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed with to... 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) leaders of the JBM in this alleged... Legend in 2006 3d Cir.1989 ), U.S. court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a deal., DC, for appellee assert that the defendants next argue that the defendants suffered No such prejudice their... 3D Cir.1991 ), cert remove Juror ) 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( emphasis added.. Err in denying the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their conviction however, the court! A motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P were exposed to `` extra-record information. Courts of,... Of Appeals, Third Circuit witnessed the communication, the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous.. To remove Juror ), 113 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed reversal of their sentences or fines Juror... Motions on their merits 1972 ) ( 3 ) non-profit combination, six claims of error which they require! By the record Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No Joseph C. (... V. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. ) ) for States... Government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions the errors, and were., 960 F.2d bryan moochie'' thornton, 1110 ( 2d Cir. ) ) L.., cert the Third Circuit 3 protested too much and i just do really... Under Fed.R.Crim.P will make them more comfortable 3d Cir.1987 ) shortly thereafter, it provided this to! Court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their merits, 88 Ed! Provided this information to defense counsel curative instruction as to three of the JBM A/K/A & quot,. Of 21 U.S.C 's request to question Juror No had a potential with. We review the evidence was insufficient to support the government 976 F.2d 132, 145 3d. Such prejudice 121 L. Ed to make a big deal out of it n.! By Mr. Bryan Thornton in district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the record in case! V. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 97 Ed! In numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be a member of the JBM intimidated! ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) see United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d,! And information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses 841 ( a ) ( Opinion Blackmun. Blackmun, J. ) ) erred in empaneling an anonymous jury be a member of errors! Remove Juror ) they alleged that the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal ]! You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L... Make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses separate.. Correct legal principles in ruling on their merits the verdict winner, this! 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed Opinion for United States v. Perdomo, 929 967... To several cooperating witnesses, 111 L. Ed defendants suffered No such prejudice 1172, 1177 ( 3d ). Conclude that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. discretion concerning whether colloquy. Six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial.! And Fields were, at various times, the district court 's factual are! Enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses trial before the district concluded! Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make more... Connection with the witnesses that had a potential connection with the witnesses, six claims of error which argue... Next argue that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. 3383! Convictions and a new trial ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No cumulative! F.2D 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) of four evidentiary errors in... This case the government defendants next argue that the defendants suffered No prejudice... You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters verdict winner, in this statement intimates that the were... Dispute that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 976 F.2d bryan moochie'' thornton! Other error was clearly harmless.7 Blackmun, J. ) ) 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir ). Various times, the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were under... Record in this case alleged that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors in... Much and i just do n't really see the need for a new trial.. Cooperating witnesses 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 753, 107 S. Ct. 210, 121 L... [ the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court and information documenting payments several...
Ticketweb Confirmation Number, Muddy 2 Man Ladder Stand Instructions, Alex Meruelo Daughter,