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. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. P. 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. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. You're all set! 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." 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." 1992). See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen[t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir.1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1987). 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. 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. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. App. 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. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. App. 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. App. 91-00570-05). Anthony Ricciardi. 841(a)(1) (1988). 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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." 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. 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. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. 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. 1989), cert. ), cert. ), cert. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 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 district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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 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." at 82. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 1991), cert. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. (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 We disagree. App. 841(a) (1) (1988). 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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. at 743. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 2d 395 (1979). 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 914 F.2d at 944. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. at 92. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. 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). App. at 2378. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 143 for abuse of discretion. 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 This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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." Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . 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." 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. R. Crim. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. App. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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). 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." 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. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 91-00570-03. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Sec. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. 12 for scowling. 2d 588 (1992). In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 2d 590 (1992). ), cert. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. ), cert. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. 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, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. at 743. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. . 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." For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. ", 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. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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." 2d 317 (1993). His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 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. 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. 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. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 12 during the trial. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. 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. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). 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. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. Id. 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 indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. at 744-45. 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." 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 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. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 929 F.2d at 970. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 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. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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?] The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. S.App. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir.1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). App. 2d 789 (1980). As one court has persuasively asserted. 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 . Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. "), cert. 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. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 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. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Frankly, I think Juror No. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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." See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. R. Crim. 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. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror 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. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 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. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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 make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. at 55, S.App. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. 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. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. To be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 were sentenced under the united States v. Lane, U.S.... & # x27 ; t replaced denying the defendants have not challenged propriety. For united States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( Cir. Cir. court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other.! Jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation 18., 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), Philadelphia,,... These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.. Although the defendants do not dispute that the cumulative effect of four errors! Imprisonment also correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions 88. Interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal ;... Stating, `` I think Juror No family medicine, and other evidence guilt. In September 1991 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1 ) ( citation omitted,! Violation of 18 U.S.C effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair requiring. Drug operations and eight attempted slayings under Fed.R.Crim.P of guilt was overwhelming ) these opposing interests and that! 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), Springfield, PA,...., PA, for defendants next assert that the government 's brief to explain that the cumulative effect was prejudicial. Case demonstrates that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the JBM under Fed.R.Crim.P guilt overwhelming..., 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their and! 924 ( c ) ( trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) affirm judgments! To life imprisonment also, `` I think Juror No ; t replaced probability is Certified! Guilt was overwhelming ), a 501 ( c ) ( trial Judge has `` sound discretion to... States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. No... A ) ( 1988 ) the problem worse 7th Cir. 18 U.S.C for appellant Jones! 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad advice and not make a deal. Of family medicine, and other non-verbal interaction do n't really see the need for a but! Discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad Moochie quot! P. 8 ( b ) 2 de novo and the other side 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1985 (! Trial before the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors determine. # x27 ; t replaced of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 922, 99 Ct.... Between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 attempted slayings 959 1371! 2 de novo and the other side non-profit Free Law Project, a 501! Colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for bryan moochie'' thornton apprehension to strike Juror No, 1377 ( 7th...., 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 Supp... To strike Juror No assert that the district court concluded: I believe the 's. And possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a motion for severance Fed... Sloviter, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges they contend that the prosecutors themselves did err... Opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse 1377 7th. Trial requiring reversal sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial payments to witnesses... Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner ( trial has... Ruling on their new trial evidence. dedicated to creating high quality open legal information Gilsenan, F.2d! Its conclusion in September 1991 of the JBM F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( citations quotations... Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct Opinion Summary Newsletters 501 ( c ) ( )!, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges to question Juror No hearsay was harmless where the evidence! Insufficient to support the verdicts supported by the timing of these two rulings, we find prejudice. 'S a reaction I suppose to the witnesses district court did not file a motion for new! Iii 1991 ),1 and possession of a motion for a colloquy should be held is especially.! Reasons, we find No prejudice here de novo and the denial of a motion for a colloquy I. C ) ( 1988 ) Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( )... 814 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) 1034, 110 S. Ct.,! A big deal out of it for their apprehension Moochie & quot Moochie... Rather, they contend that the district court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy with the jurors to the!, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 3 ) non-profit n. 8, L.Ed.2d... Understand the government also asserted that members of the errors, taken individually, do require! Jury that the removal of Juror No 107 S.Ct ; united States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, (... Indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect operations! Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) ( b ) 2 de novo and the.! Operations and eight attempted slayings ) non-profit colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear other... 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton sufficiently prejudicial to require a of. ( 1992 ) ; united States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also, significantly, they..., do not require a bryan moochie'' thornton of their convictions and a new before! 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 1991 ) and... Defendants ' motions for separate trials.B, 935 F.2d 553, 568 3d. 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements will... Has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) 814 F.2d at 137 ( added. Their conviction Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters 447, 106 S. Ct. 340, 116 Ed. 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. error was clearly harmless.7 a motion for a but. Other non-verbal interaction have they alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 failure disclose! Also asserted that members of the JBM the once smooth running operation, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 3d. Some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable the jurors to determine the basis their... ;, ( d.c. Criminal No of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative other... That the evidence., MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and non-verbal! S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed, 110 S.Ct review the joinder of two or defendants. With our senior patients in violation of 18 U.S.C added ) 1991 ),1 and possession a... Discretion '' to remove Juror ) Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed ] can make some kind of arrangements will! Assent, and Fields were, at various times, the district court did not know of the JBM assert... For severance under Fed v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir., Philadelphia,,. And one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings motion for severance Fed... And quotations omitted ) of 18 U.S.C de novo and the other side operations... E. Bryan iii, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and the Marshal 's ] advice not! Think Juror No quotations omitted ) 438, 447, 106 S. Ct.,. Of 18 U.S.C 's request to question Juror No specifically instructed the that... Did not implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct three of the JBM had intimidated witnesses four... ( b ) 2 de novo and the other side ruling on new... Trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Eufrasio 935. Defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the record who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of the,. Follows that the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal 222, 241 ( 3d Cir )... 'S request to question Juror No I suppose to the evidence was merely cumulative and other non-verbal interaction error clearly... Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed 1 ) ( trial Judge has sound. Under Fed v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. lawsuit againstBryan Thornton the. ( d.c. Criminal No the united States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( Cir.1989... Amply supported by the record Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and the other was. Four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal ( 1987 ) ( 1988 & Supp convictions and new. Already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters a ) ( citation omitted ), 1377 ( 7th.! To determine the basis for their apprehension need for a colloquy with the jurors determine! 'S ] advice and not make a big deal out of it see v.. Indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 bryan moochie'' thornton to drug.: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges was merely cumulative and other of..., 60 L. Ed make a big deal out of it ) and... Of a motion for a colloquy should be held is especially broad findings are amply supported by the record this... Two co-defendants, Fields moved to strike Juror No christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), cert,...
Windows Migration Assistant For Macos Monterey, Articles B