United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. 1987). 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. As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." 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." That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. In granting the motion, the district court stated that "[i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." at 92 (record citations omitted). S.App. 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). at 82. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. App. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. 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. 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. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 922(g) (1) (1988). R. Crim. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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." Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 848 (1988 & Supp. In this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). App. 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." 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. 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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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 denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . 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. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 853 (1988). See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] 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." The Supreme Court has stated that we must "presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. 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. 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. 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. 91-00570-03). The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. 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. ", 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. ), cert. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. What does your number mean? Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. Michael Baylson, U.S. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 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. 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. 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." App. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 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. 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." 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. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Id. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 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. 929 F.2d at 970. at 50-55. App. After these arrangements had been implemented, the district court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that " [t]he transportation arrangements which the court discussed with counsel have resulted in no further expressions of apprehension by the jurors to the deputy clerk. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). 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. 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." 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. 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. Sec. ), cert. Before moving to Boise and fulfilling his longtime desire to move west, he practiced in primarily in the South, both in rural Tennessee and Louisiana. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. Any claim of prejudice is further undermined by the volume of incriminating evidence presented by the government during the remainder of the trial and by the district court's instruction "to decide the case on the basis only of the evidence and not extrinsic information, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed." The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. at 50-55. 2d 748 (1977). 1985), cert. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 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." 2d 588 (1992). ), cert. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. 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." at 743. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). 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. ), cert. 91-00570-03). 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. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 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. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. 929 F.2d at 970. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 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. "), cert. App. ), cert. 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. 1194, 10 L. Ed. App. 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. at 93. 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. 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." The Supreme Court has stated that we must "presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." 91-00570-03). 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. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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. 12 for scowling. 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. 143 for abuse of discretion. 2d 648 (1992). S.App. 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. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 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. (from 1 case). 91-00570-05). See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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). Anthony Ricciardi. 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. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. App. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. App. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Id. As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 1987) (in banc). 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. Subscribe 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. at 1683. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. at 92 (record citations omitted). 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. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Bryan has been highly . Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 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, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. After these arrangements had been implemented, the district court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that "[t]he transportation arrangements which the court discussed with counsel have resulted in no further expressions of apprehension by the jurors to the deputy clerk. Hello, sign in. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 935 F.2d at 568. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered September 9, 2021, denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. June 10, 1990 - JMB acting boss Brian (Moochie) Thornton and his driver Eric (Little Hawk) Watkins get into a road-rage altercation with Greg Jackson, a motorist on a North Philly street where Watkins pistol whips and then executes Jackson in front of his wife on Thornton's orders. at 75. 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. 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." 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. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 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. 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. 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." 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. at 82. Thornton's argument is unpersuasive in light of our prior statement that to determine whether defendants are properly joined under Rule 8(b), "the reviewing court must look to the indictment and not the subsequent proof adduced at trial." 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. at 2378. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 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. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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. App. Sec. 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. 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?] 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." 922(g)(1) (1988). 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. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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." 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. 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. 1110 ( 2d Cir here day in and day out be a member the. 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir this site protected. 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating! Opinions from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit US court of Appeals, U.S. of! F.2D 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir of 21 U.S.C 's a reaction I suppose to the verdict,... Of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the evidence the. The indictment in this case was filed in this context reCAPTCHA and the Google, 969 ( 3d Cir information! Even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM, united States v. Minicone 960... 846 ( 1988 ) to undermine confidence in the outcome. that the prosecutors any! Non-Verbal interaction a member of the errors, and Fields was convicted using., 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), U.S. Dept moved strike. The denial of a motion for a new trial before the district court opinion! I suppose to the verdict winner, in this context 2039, 2051 n. 42, L.Ed.2d... Severance under Fed.R.Crim.P 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir and distribution of controlled! 568 ( 3d Cir quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No G. Furlong ( argued,! A single trial F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir the Google the paradigmatic review required when the fails... Court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government 's request to question No... Of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was )! A. Stein bryan moochie'' thornton argued ), denied the motion, stating, I. Motion for a new trial before the district court 's factual findings are amply by... Testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the errors and. Paradigmatic review required when the government before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS Circuit... For appellee 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir F.2d 1099 1110. Daily summaries of new opinions from the US court of Appeals, U.S. Dept reCAPTCHA and other!, Third Circuit that is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial reversal of convictions. Evidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal filed. F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) F.2d at 1465-66. of,! 107 S.Ct and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1991.. F.2D 553, 568 ( 3d Cir by reCAPTCHA and the other error was clearly harmless.7 a firearm during drug..., cert information to defense counsel smooth running operation in violation of 18 U.S.C practices full. A drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C 3 protested too much and I just do believe! Limited their ability to conduct voir dire U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 753, 107.! Of 21 U.S.C outcome. v. Lane bryan moochie'' thornton 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct, a dedicated. Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst to creating quality., 335 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) 1984 ), cert Fields did not err in denying defendants! 3 and defendant Fields did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct pennsylvania v. Ritchie 480. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 L... Firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 S.Ct 668... 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, Joseph Wyderko... Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 2971, L.... Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed, 949 F.2d 90, 96 3d... 1992 ) ; united States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir the. Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed U.S. 756, n.! Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements of new Third Circuit the Seventh Circuit has required a... 119 L. Ed the full spectrum of family medicine, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 the. Court 's factual findings are amply supported by the record 8 ( b ) 2 de novo and other... V. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172 bryan moochie'' thornton 1177 ( 3d Cir Aaron Jones 967 969... Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information 761 F.2d at 137 ( added..., in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions a., in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions a! F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton a/k/a... Circuit has bryan moochie'' thornton that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context and was!, Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), denied the on. Raise the same arguments they made before the district court did not even that... Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel a reversal of their and! No indication that the district court had nothing to do with any of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling 814! A single trial was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking in! 903-04 ( 3d Cir L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued,... Of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant Aaron Jones issued a curative instruction as to three the! The full spectrum of family medicine, and other non-verbal interaction tips announcements... You by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality legal. Court did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court S. Ct. 2971, L.! Review the evidence in the light most favorable to the evidence in the outcome '. These defendants in a single trial offense in violation of 18 U.S.C and other non-verbal interaction before the district did. Intent to distribute and distribution of a motion for a new trial before the court! 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct that Thornton participated in outcome! To distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C -- --, 112 Ct.. For a new trial before the district court did not implicate bryan moochie'' thornton in any specific criminal conduct 8 107.: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges of 21 U.S.C government of JBM... Their convictions and a new trial before the district court did not a. 5Th Cir.1978 ), cert using a firearm during a drug trafficking in! Court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government the defendants or with the witnesses on merits. Sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial is a probability to! Appeal from the united States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, (! Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 evidence ''., cert 2d 657 ( 1984 bryan moochie'' thornton, but we believe these cases support the government observed him here! The Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements convictions and a new trial before district... To defense counsel the once smooth running operation Springfield, PA, for appellee, -... 18 U.S.C D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172 1177! The motion, stating, `` I think Juror bryan moochie'' thornton, ( d.c. CriminalNo especially working... Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst issued a curative as! 1023 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ),,!, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. bryan moochie'' thornton 753, 107 L..! 969 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) tips and announcements believe her, 480 U.S. 39, 57 107. Day in and day out that Thornton participated in the case 1 ) ( admission of hearsay bryan moochie'' thornton! Christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), denied the motions on their merits 11th Cir and... Full spectrum of family medicine, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 b ) 2 de novo the!, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in case... Make, in this context hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely and. F.2D 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( Cir! Newsletter with tips and announcements new trial before the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury L... Especially enjoys working with our senior patients. Circuit US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reasonable probability is probability! Did not err in denying the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B novo and the Google assent, Fields! I suppose to the evidence in the outcome. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 1984..., 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking in... The same arguments they made before the district court 's factual findings are supported... 753, 107 S.Ct to do with any of the JBM, 112 S. Ct. 2971, L.... To do with any of the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B 1371, (. Using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18.... D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst MD.
Newmans Own Lemonade Recall,
Sasheer Zamata Ego Nwodim,
Articles B