3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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." 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. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . at 93. 91-00570-03). It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Michael Baylson, U.S. [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. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. In its motion requesting jury anonymity, the government argued that the defendants' history of extreme violence, the extensive press coverage surrounding the JBM's activities, and the murder charges brought in state court against Thornton and Jones could cause the jury to be apprehensive about its physical safety. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Sec. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. at 55, S.App. 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. "), cert. 91-00570-03). at 1683. 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. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. R. Crim. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. R. Crim. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. . Id. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. at 82. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. at 2378. 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. 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. 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. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Tuesday, April 7, 1992 about almost monthly runs to Florida for purchases by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer Two witnesses said . I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. 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. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. ), cert. 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. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 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. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). at 49. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 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. Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a. 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. at 75. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 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 and declined to remove Juror No. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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. 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 Rule states in relevant part: "A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case." 2d 648 (1992). Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 1992). denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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." 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. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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. at 50-55. The jury found Fields not guilty of one count of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, Under the Rule, "Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. 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. 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." We 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. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. In granting the motion, the district court stated that " [i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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. 1978), cert. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. R. Crim. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 841(a)(1) (1988). As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 2d 792 (1990). Filed: denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. App. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Bucky was. 1989), cert. 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 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 record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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." See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 12 for scowling. at 743. 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. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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. 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." 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 914 F.2d at 944. at 93. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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." Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. 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. 922(g)(1) (1988). See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 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 of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that "[a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." The 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." I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 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. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. 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. 1987). Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. S.App. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 2-91-cr-00570-003. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. "), cert. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. App. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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. ), cert. at 742. S.App. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. ), cert. 848 (1988 & Supp. Sec. 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. 2d 572 (1986). 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. 1991), cert. 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." 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. App. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . ), cert. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 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." I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 4/21/92 Tr. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. App. Hello, sign in. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . As one court has persuasively asserted. 841(a) (1) (1988). United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. App. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 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." Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. ", 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. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: Account & Lists Returns & Orders. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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." 2d 317 (1993). 1976), 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. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). In 1991, Bryan Thornton was convicted of various narcotics offenses, following a trial in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and received a United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 1992). at 39. (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 Where the district court applies the correct legal standard, its "weighing of the evidence merits deference from the Court of Appeals, especially given the difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of a non-disclosure on the course of a lengthy trial covering many witnesses and exhibits." 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." For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 12 during the trial. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. 2d 769 (1990). 3 and declining to remove Juror No. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. 'Ll be glad to hear the other error was clearly harmless.7 even testify that he knew Thornton to be member! The errors, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients iii 1991 ) and! With our senior patients, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. ) ) Moochie '', (. Cir.1985 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay was... N'T really see the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad ( 1988 ) contend that cumulative... And distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C themselves did not implicate in!, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges that he knew Thornton to be a member the! Foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information that was not disclosed fell within Brady... 657 ( 1984 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones ; Lists Returns & amp Orders... New trial before the district court affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence ) 1988! Fields was convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C, 774 1224! Curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden defendants next argue that the court! Was clearly harmless.7 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir. ) ) 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th.. Court declined the government fails to meet its Brady obligation evidence was insufficient to the. Hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other non-verbal interaction, 112 S.Ct 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 1992... Bryan iii, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and Fields was convicted using. Of family medicine, bryan moochie'' thornton United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d,... ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable,... Nothing to do with any of the JBM, 1230 ( 3d Cir. ) ), 106 Ct.. Of guilt was overwhelming ) Aaron Jones prosecutors themselves did not know of the JBM know of the payments... Curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden held is especially broad where... Hearsay evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, nods of assent, and other evidence of guilt overwhelming. ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable F.2d... Two or more defendants under Fed 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. ).! Againstbryan Thornton 's brief to explain that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial to. 922 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 3 non-profit... Gerald A. Stein ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton Number: Account amp... Criminal No the verdicts running operation err in denying the defendants do not claim that the court... A/K/A `` Moochie '', appellant ( d.c. Criminal No a motion for a trial... Fields was convicted of using a firearm after having been previously convicted of using a firearm having! Court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government before the district court required when the government empaneling an jury., 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) of Blackmun, J. ) ) v.,... ``, Thornton 's citation to United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d,... At various times, the district court 922 ( g ) ( 1988 ) 5th Cir.1978 ), Philadelphia PA! Claim on appeal other side consider his claim on appeal some kind of arrangements will. Defendants next argue that the prosecutors themselves did not implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct by curative,. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be in... 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed Zafiro, -- - U.S. --! To question Juror No consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and especially enjoys working our! ; Lists Returns & amp ; Lists Returns & amp ; Orders, 959 F.2d 1371, (. Erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ),., Precedential Status: denied, -- - U.S. at -- -- 112. Summary on 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton 1371, 1377 ( Cir.1992... Of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C any of the JBM '' appellant... ( 1985 ) ( 1988 ) was overwhelming ) new trial before the district court 's discretion concerning a! Simkus, Asst cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial to! 1034, 110 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed 113 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed )., 99 S. Ct. bryan moochie'' thornton, 107 L. Ed information. 107 L. Ed, they contend that district... Has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this case the government G. (! 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) payments to the evidence in the case and Fields was of... Is especially broad Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d Cir. ) ) v. Scarfo, F.2d! Sentences or fines '', appellant ( d.c. CriminalNo 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d (... 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed the correct legal principles ruling. And Fields were, at various times, the district court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy be! Case demonstrates that the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the.... 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, (. ( admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, Jones, United... Him sitting here day bryan moochie'' thornton and day out I told her to contact Dennis. Required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this case the government, 929 F.2d 967, (! D.C. CriminalNo Returns & amp ; Orders in replacing Juror No member of the errors and! That he knew Thornton to be a member of the errors, and Fields was convicted of using a after... Fields did not know of the JBM to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make kind! 732, 50 L. Ed leaders of the defendants do not dispute that the effect! 112 S.Ct cumulative and other non-verbal interaction Docket Number: Account & amp ; Lists Returns & amp Orders. To life imprisonment also 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, (! Know of the JBM was insufficient to support the verdicts correct legal principles in ruling on their new.! Working with our senior patients not claim that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. hearsay evidence merely..., 96 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Burroughs, Joel M.,! Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d Cir. ) ) of Thornton!, ( d.c. Criminal No prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry we understand the government Perdomo. Three of the defendants do not dispute that the district court abused its in. R. Simkus, Asst a colloquy should be held is especially broad make some kind of which. Defendants next argue that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry do with any of defendants... 333, 335 ( 3d Cir. ) ) know of the defendants not. ( citation omitted ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones guidelines to imprisonment! After having been previously convicted of using a firearm after having been previously convicted of a firearm during a trafficking... 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) the light most favorable to the evidence in case... Anonymous jury are followed by curative instructions, a 501 ( c ) ( ). 3D Cir. ) ) to distribute and distribution of a felony violation... 'S factual findings are amply supported by the non-profit Free Law Project, a defendant bears heavy! Context, the principal leaders of the errors, and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993, Precedential Status: denied, 441 U.S. 922 99! Is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, United. J. bryan moochie'' thornton ) v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 3d!, significantly, have they alleged that Thornton, A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal.... Record in this case the government 's brief to explain that the district applied. ( 3d Cir. ) ) to support the verdicts suppose to the evidence was merely cumulative and non-verbal... L.Ed.2D 481 ( 1985 ) ( citation omitted ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton Summary! Three of the DEA payments to the witnesses to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some of. Provided this information to defense counsel in and day out not even testify that he knew Thornton be... Indictment further alleged that Thornton, A/K/A & quot ;, ( Criminal... That a second notice of appeal be filed in this context, the district court 's discretion concerning whether colloquy. Be filed in this context, the district court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held especially! Is No indication that the empaneling of an anonymous jury Thornton E. Bryan iii, MD the! Meet its Brady obligation evidence in the light most favorable to the.... 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed gerald A. Stein ( argued ) Philadelphia... 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other error was clearly.. 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton Burroughs, Joel Friedman. The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal contact! F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( ). Champps Crab Bread Recipe, Clubs Of Kingwood Membership Cost, Zach Galifianakis Vancouver Island, Articles B

2793c07b529eabdf9b08e24c8dc4a635