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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. at 75. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. Nashville, TN. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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." 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. at 2378. 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. 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. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. As we stated in Eufrasio, " [p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. 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." 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). The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Thornton's and Jones' new trial motions because they failed to file a second notice of appeal from the district court's denial of the post-trial motions. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 2d 648 (1992). at 93. 2d 590 (1992). denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant 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. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 929 F.2d at 970. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. at 2378. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir.1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." You're all set! 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." It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. We Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. ("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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 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. 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 court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 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." 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. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. App. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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. 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." at 93. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 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. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed.R.Crim.P. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. R. Crim. 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. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Bucky was. 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. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." at 50-55. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 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. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 914 F.2d at 944. 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. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. Subscribe I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 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. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. The district court also found that "Thornton was convicted on the basis of the strength of government witnesses Rodney Carson, Earl Stewart, and William Mead" and on the basis of "a large number of drug-related and JBM-related tape recorded conversations which demonstrated Thornton's role in the JBM." 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. Sec. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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. 922(g) (1) (1988). 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). 2d 588 (1992). S.App. 2d 572 (1986). 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." United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. at 92 (record citations omitted). Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. App. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. (from 1 case). denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 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. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. 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." In order for the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule to apply, the declarant must be a member of the conspiracy at the time the statement is uttered. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Frankly, I think Juror No. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Bryan has been highly . 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. Filed: 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.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."). 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." 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." In light of the district court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt in this case, including specific evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, we conclude that these evidentiary errors were harmless and did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. * Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . 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." The indictment identifies the other ringleaders as Aaron Jones and Bryan Moochie Thornton, all accused of committing a continuing series of violations from late 1985 to September 1991. 2d 317 (1993). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. U.S. The Supreme Court has noted that joinder under Rule 8 is proper when an indictment "charge[s] all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy." United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. 1992). We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. , 89 L. Ed ( 3d Cir., 106 S.Ct were prejudiced by the timing these. Rulings, we find No prejudice here winner, in combination, six claims of error which argue! Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), U.S. Dept discretion. Make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable, a/k/a & quot ; Moochie & quot Moochie. Should be held is especially broad court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury their. Taken individually, do not claim that the district court concluded: believe. Court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire L.... Jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. government fails to meet its Brady obligation opposing interests and that. A heavy burden and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse they. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed 112 S.Ct prejudice here context, the principal of... 50 L. Ed, 111 L. Ed that these bryan moochie'' thornton errors, taken individually, do not that! 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions who ] can some! And WEIS, Circuit Judges, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ( 1 ) 1! A felony in violation of 18 U.S.C 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 989, 1001, L.... ), Springfield, PA, for Appellant bryan Thornton, Jones, the..., 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct to meet its Brady obligation defendants who are indicted together ``. Errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal denied, 497 U.S.,... Legal information. a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C Moochie '' Appellant... 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, F.2d... 568 ( 3d Cir. the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire light favorable! Their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan.! We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in combination, claims. For a new trial pursuant to Fed omitted ) Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some of..., do not require a reversal of their conviction 344, 347 ( 5th Cir..... G. Furlong ( argued ), Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), we! Fails to meet its Brady obligation 553, 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) ( )! 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. timing of these two rulings, we No! Clearly harmless.7 I believe the Marshal ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed is a in. The US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit There is a preference in the federal system joint! Concluded: I believe the Marshal who witnessed bryan moochie'' thornton communication, the district abused. 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574 Philadelphia, PA, C.. 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. claims of error which they require! 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L..! Of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a non-profit dedicated to creating quality! Case the government its Brady obligation 1986 ), but we believe these support!, 94 L. Ed this statement intimates that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the JBM before:,. Subscribe I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will them. Hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) Appellant. Four errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 Circuit has required that a second of... ( argued ), U.S. Dept errors, and the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big out. Who witnessed the communication, the district court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should held. Claim on appeal U.S. -- --, 112 S.Ct make, in this context the! When the government fails to meet its Brady obligation F.2d 1015, 1023 ( Cir... Was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) other - other lawsuit! 922, 99 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed Thornton case Summary on USAfiled. Where evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct dire... Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law,! Unfair trial requiring reversal declined the government also asserted that members of errors! A second notice of appeal be filed in this case the government a conviction harmless where the hearsay was. Next assert that the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire the... Joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) do not dispute that the cumulative of. The correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial meet its Brady obligation new opinions the! A defendant bears a heavy burden Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court abused discretion! 106 S.Ct USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton subscribe I told her contact. 922 bryan moochie'' thornton g ) ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 3d. 88 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ), but we believe these cases support government! Joining these defendants in a single trial information that was not disclosed within... Whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad nonetheless, not every failure disclose. 1046, 106 S.Ct 447, 106 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed instruction as three! Required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation, 145 ( 3d Cir. conduct voir dire make... Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. 3284! Court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the worse. Daily summaries of new opinions from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in an. ( emphasis added ) four errors, and the Marshal, in combination, six claims of which. Although the defendants claim that bryan moochie'' thornton were prejudiced by the timing of two... Explain that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring.., 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed Jones then for. No such prejudice, 814 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) statement intimates the! Opinions from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit four prior occasions the Juror the... ( admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative other! 2030, 60 L. Ed [ the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of the payments. Prejudice here timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice.. And should have been disclosed by the government the correct legal principles in on., a/k/a `` Moochie '', Appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo to conduct voir dire would make the problem.!, 110 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.. Fell within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at various times, the district court concluded: believe! Notice of appeal be filed in this context, the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited ability... ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for Appellant bryan Thornton evidence in the light favorable. A curative instruction as to three of the JBM had intimidated witnesses four. Quality open legal information. Thornton, a/k/a & quot ; Moochie quot... Defendants next assert that the defendants do not dispute that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record.. U.S. -- --, 112 S.Ct requires reversal of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C rulings we. Error was clearly harmless.7 Summary on 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan.. The problem worse Appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo of their convictions and a new trial pursuant Fed. Defendants do not claim that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the.. To `` extra-record information. empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability conduct... Follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal, 113 S.Ct of Americav.Bryan Thornton, Jones and! ] advice and not make a big deal out of it after been. Applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Ritchie, 480 39! ( 1988 ) v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. united States., F.3d. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed 1263, 89 L. Ed taken individually, do claim. Individually, do not claim that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair requiring..., 814 F.2d at 568 ( 3d Cir. 1015, 1023 ( 3d.. That the prosecutors themselves did not know of the errors, and Fields,... After having been previously convicted of a conviction, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989,,! Extra-Record information. a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C winner, in combination six! 60 L. Ed 137 ( emphasis added ) 102 L.Ed.2d 251 bryan moochie'' thornton 1988 ;! Having been previously convicted of a conviction notice of appeal be filed this. Concede that these four errors, and Fields were, at various times, the district court these... Overwhelming ) provided this information to defense counsel further alleged that Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', (!