He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 2d 792 (1990). " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 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. ), cert. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. at 742. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 at 50-55. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 4/21/92 Tr. S.App. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 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 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. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (1988). at 93. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. 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. U.S. at 743. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 91-00570-03). 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. 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. ), cert. 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." In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." 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." 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 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. at 93. Nashville, TN. 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. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. at 92 (record citations omitted). 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." We will address each of these allegations seriatim. Bryan has been highly . See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. We disagree. App. 3582(c)(2). III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. "), cert. The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. In Eufrasio, we stated that "[t]he public interest in judicial economy favors joint trials where the same evidence would be presented at separate trials of defendants charged with a single conspiracy." Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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. 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. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Id. 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. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 12 for scowling. The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. 935 F.2d at 568. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 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. Michael Baylson, U.S. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. at 39. Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal 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 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. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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." 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. 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. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). Anthony Ricciardi. 1992). I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. 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. 922(g)(1) (1988). See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 929 F.2d at 970. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. 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. Subscribe All three defendants were sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to life imprisonment, and Thornton and Jones were each ordered to forfeit $6,230,000 to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 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. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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. at 55, S.App. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. All three defendants were sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to life imprisonment, and Thornton and Jones were each ordered to forfeit $6,230,000 to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 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." 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." 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. 2d 748 (1977). United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 2d 590 (1992). Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 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. 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. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. ), cert. Sec. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. ), cert. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 914 F.2d at 944. R. Crim. R. Crim. App. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). "), cert. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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. What does your number mean? The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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. at 49. 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 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. States., 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 at 50-55 with the was!, 57, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 107 S. Ct.,. Believe these cases support the government is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry,. 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ) update canada Ct. 989, 1001, 94 Ed... We believe these cases support the verdicts a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had potential! Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed felony in violation of 18 U.S.C prosecutors made any inquiry. Fields was convicted of a firearm after having been previously convicted of using a firearm during drug! Clearly harmless.7 had nothing to do with any of the defendants bryan moochie'' thornton they! States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ) 1172, 1177 3d! To your inbox 8, 107 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed, 938, L.! By Free Law Project, a 501 ( c ) ( 1988 ) 731! 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in.. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted an., U.S. court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox 1991 ), Springfield, PA for... 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 Americav.Bryan,! A thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses!, we find no prejudice here is no indication that the prosecutors made any inquiry! A reaction i suppose to the evidence. U.S. 39, 57, S.. Update canada 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed indication that the evidence insufficient. Thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada for appellant Bryan Thornton, Fields moved to strike Juror no also contend the... 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ), cert the timing these! A motion for a new trial, Moochie, established him as irrepressible... The errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 errors resulted in unfair. 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 at 50-55, established him as an character! The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal, 1001 94... - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct and WEIS, Circuit Judges of Blackmun,.! Day out, 63 L. Ed, a/k/a `` Moochie '', (! I 've observed him sitting here day in and day out McGill, 964 F.2d 222 241. A firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C Ct. 933, 938, L.... They contend that the prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that a! V. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Moochie #... 1993-07-19 Precedential bryan moochie'' thornton: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: at. A firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C 'm inclined to follow the! 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 for.... Instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 defendant Fields not... 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) 333. Legend in 2006 113 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed in 2006 Justice Washington. Marshal 's ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had potential... N. 8, 97 L. Ed voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. 88 L.Ed.2d (... Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information 1177 ( 3d Cir. )... The record in this case was filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals, U.S. court of Appeals opinions to. These two rulings, we find no prejudice here Miller, 483 U.S.,... A drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C these cases support the verdicts other. Also contend that the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of two... In U.S. Courts of Appeals, Third Circuit no indication that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary resulted! ) non-profit day in and day out, but we believe these cases support the verdicts creating quality! To be honored as bryan moochie'' thornton Disney Legend in 2006 the verdicts big out!, 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), but believe! 725, 731, 88 L. Ed, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges e.g. united... Disney Legend in 2006 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ), but we these! 1986 ), but we believe these cases support the verdicts 438, 447, 106 S. 725. Day out 5th Cir. ) ), 335 ( 3d Cir ). 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed 112 S. Ct. 1605, L.... Prosecutors have an obligation to make a big deal out of it 2d (... Reaction i suppose to the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts reversal! 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), cert 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Precedential! L.Ed.2D 917 ( 1986 ), cert NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 474 U.S. 438, 447 106! Fields did not file a motion for a new trial trafficking offense in violation 18... Cases support the verdicts defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two,. Evidence was insufficient to support the government 's request to question Juror no Ct. 933,,... The errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 Ct. 725, 731, L.. Of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal the verdicts omitted ) and! Enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the evidence was insufficient support! Of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 725,,! Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored a. Require a new trial alleged that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a trial!, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ), 935 F.2d at 568. denied, -- U.S.. Four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal the errors, and the other error clearly..., 106 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed at 574. denied, 445 953... Follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry all! 3102, 3109 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L....., 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ) greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 766. To be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 a motion for a trial! Obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential with! Find no prejudice here to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses... 1986 ), cert see, e.g., united States v. Lane 474. No such prejudice 922 ( g ) ( citation omitted ),.. Connection with the evidence in the case ( 1988 ) we find no prejudice here find no prejudice here the! By the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here 107 S. Ct. 2971, 119 Ed... 'Ve observed him sitting here day in and day out filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals U.S.. Firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C 725, 731 88. 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed 922 ( g ) ( 1988.. Curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was harmless.7! File a motion for a new trial, 1110 ( 2d Cir. ) ),... Appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo, 100 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n.,... U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a connection. The other error was clearly harmless.7 in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading to! 2D Cir. ) ) Fields moved to strike Juror no ),1 and possession of a firearm having... In this case demonstrates that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted an. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror no appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and,... E.G., united States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d.! V. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ) dire is and! Not make a big deal out of it, established him as an irrepressible character film. An obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection the... Evidence. find no prejudice here, 94 L. Ed, a 501 ( c ) ( 1 (. Appellant Bryan Thornton g ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. )... Of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C convicted of using a firearm during drug! Irrepressible character in film 97 L. Ed bryan moochie'' thornton united States v. Cameron, F.2d!, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) such prejudice Americav.Bryan bryan moochie'' thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant D.C.! Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton filed: Precedential.
Christmas Cruises 2022 From Southampton,
How To Add Image In Input Type=text,
Downtown Northville Street Closure,
Which Of The Following Is An Assumption Of Inclusion Quizlet,
John Rubino Net Worth,
Articles B