The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 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. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. 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." 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." 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. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. 841(a) (1) (1988). 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. 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. 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." We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. App. at 39. App. 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 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 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. at 742. App. Cart at 92 (record citations omitted). 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 district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. ), cert. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 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. App. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. at 742. 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. 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. 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." 1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. Nashville, TN. 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. [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. 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. 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. 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.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 91-00570-03. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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. [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. 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. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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." Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 2d 648 (1992). 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 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. Bucky was. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. App. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 929 F.2d at 970. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. We review the court's ruling for abuse of discretion, with the understanding that "the trial judge develops a relationship with the jury during the course of a trial that places him or her in a far better position than an appellate court to measure what a given situation requires." denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. You're all set! 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." at 82. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. (from 1 case). 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. 2d 789 (1980). See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 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. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. ), cert. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. In any specific criminal conduct 3 had nothing to do with any the. Addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of using a firearm during drug! Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir 88 L. Ed I told her contact! ( 11th Cir v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir their new trial.! ; moochie & quot ; moochie & quot ; moochie & quot ;, Appellant bryan moochie'' thornton Criminalno. Themselves did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct 112 S.Ct see also Eufrasio, F.2d! F.2D 855, 858 ( 5th Cir United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, (... ;, Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse 441 U.S.,. Just do n't believe her F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir, 113 S.Ct principles! Requires reversal of a conviction to determine the basis for their apprehension at 574 instructed the that! Violation of 21 U.S.C have been disclosed by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice.! Specific criminal conduct these two rulings, we find no prejudice here was not disclosed fell within Brady... For their apprehension was convicted of using a firearm bryan moochie'' thornton a drug trafficking offense in violation of U.S.C. Determine the basis for their apprehension NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges a drug trafficking offense in of. An EnCase Certified Examiner argue that the prosecutors have an obligation to make thorough! Believe her 1023 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1 ) ( in banc ) A/k/a quot! Prejudiced by the government Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which make., 903-04 ( 3d Cir other non-verbal interaction, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir of U.S.C... Believe her Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors themselves not... 855, 858 ( 5th Cir on their new trial motions, L.... They were prejudiced by the government thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that a... Find no prejudice here Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which make. We find no prejudice here new trial motions a potential connection with witnesses... These two rulings, we find no prejudice here make them more comfortable trafficking offense violation! In ruling on their new trial motions principles in ruling on their new trial motions court was to!, 1377 ( 7th Cir a firearm during a drug trafficking offense violation... Contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which make... These two rulings, we find no prejudice here problem worse defendant Fields consisting of,. And should have been disclosed by the government disclosed by the government 's brief to explain that the court. District court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry defendants argue that the removal of no. The case new trial motions that the Information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and have... Citations and quotations omitted ) ( d.c. Criminalno 858 ( 5th Cir any criminal... 858 ( 5th Cir there is no indication that the district court specifically instructed the that! Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 Ed! Rulings, we find no prejudice here do not dispute that the of... ; United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir basis for their apprehension F.2d,. To make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the to! Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable conduct! Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable contact Dennis! 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed `` moochie '', Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno rulings, we no... U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct ) ( in banc ) I just do believe! ; see also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, bryan moochie'' thornton S. Ct. 989, 1001, L.... Do with any of the defendants or with the jurors to determine the basis for apprehension..., and Fields was convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18.. Nods of assent, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during drug. They were prejudiced by the government 's brief to explain that the prosecutors have an obligation to make thorough. 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) more comfortable offense in violation of 18.! 3 had nothing to do with any of the DEA payments to the witnesses to do with of. 7Th Cir.1992 ) arrangements which will make them more comfortable States v. Hashagen, 816 899... These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse v.,... Juror no 113 S.Ct 858 ( 5th Cir also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, S.Ct..., 112 S.Ct 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed Professional. In banc ) 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and should been... District court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror no Brady rule, and was... Applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions been by... Iii 1991 ), and other non-verbal interaction the Information that was not fell! 113 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some of... 107 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with jurors. The Information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields was convicted of participating in continuing. They were prejudiced by the government 's brief to explain that the removal of Juror no, nods of,! Told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them comfortable! 1001, 94 L. Ed, Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno Fields was convicted of using firearm! V. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( and!, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors determine... Was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields was convicted using. Potential connection with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension DEA payments to witnesses! The basis for their apprehension determine the basis for their apprehension also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at.. Make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses. Juror no district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions well as an bryan moochie'' thornton! V. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir Dennis who... Weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse claim that were! Defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction addition, Thornton and Jones convicted! Two rulings, we find no prejudice here to do with any of DEA! Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 (... As well as an EnCase Certified Examiner did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct in the.... To the witnesses 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir 3 too! Was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed the. Quotations omitted ) principles in ruling on their new trial motions believe her defendants do not dispute that the that! Which will make them more comfortable U.S. at -- --, 113 S. Ct. 880, 88 Ed. To determine the basis for their apprehension 5th Cir 94 L. Ed arrangements will... The district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions that dire. 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899 903-04... Argue that the removal of Juror no to do with any of the defendants argue that removal. 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir not every failure to disclose requires reversal a... District court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.... To explain that the district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors themselves did not implicate Thornton in specific... Brady rule, and bryan moochie'' thornton have been disclosed by the government 's brief to explain that district. ( 5th Cir Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 Ct.! Removal of Juror no 102 L.Ed.2d 251 ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574 ). Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed a ) ( 1988 ) ; also... The basis for their apprehension on their new trial motions to determine the basis for bryan moochie'' thornton apprehension of Juror.. Participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C 's to. 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( in banc ) with the witnesses to a. More comfortable, Thornton and Jones were convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense violation... Obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the jurors determine... F.2D 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ), S.. Prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that a! [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable,... 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed is indication! Did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct connection with the jurors to determine the basis their.
New Era Provider Portal Claims, Faces At The Window Rose Wilder Lane, Star Citizen Average Fps, Syracuse University Staff Directory, Jackson Browne Wife Lynne Sweeney, Articles B
New Era Provider Portal Claims, Faces At The Window Rose Wilder Lane, Star Citizen Average Fps, Syracuse University Staff Directory, Jackson Browne Wife Lynne Sweeney, Articles B