Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir.1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). [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. 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." You're all set! 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. 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 742. 1991). 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. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. App. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-2857: Filed: October 6, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: Opinions. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. 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." Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. ), cert. at 49. 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. 4/21/92 Tr. 853 (1988). 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. Id. 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. 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). U.S. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). 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. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 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. ), cert. 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." For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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. 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. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. We disagree. Filed: 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. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 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. (from 1 case). The court properly recognized that " '[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 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."). at 50-55. at 50-55. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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. 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. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 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. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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 record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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. at 39. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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." 2d 588 (1992). 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. 1991), cert. 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. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 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. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. ), cert. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 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. P. 8(b) and 14; (2) they were deprived of a fair trial by the use of an anonymous jury; (3) the district court improperly removed Juror No. at 82. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. at 744-45. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that " [a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). 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. 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." See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 12 during the trial. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that "[a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Frankly, I think Juror No. 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. 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." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). Id. at 2378. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. at 1683. App. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (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. 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 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." 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. . 848 (1988 & Supp. 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. ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 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." 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 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. at 93. 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. 2d 280 (1991). Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. 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." 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." 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 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." 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. S.App. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. Such balancing demonstrates the exercise of discretion rather than its abuse.6 Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no further expressions of apprehensiveness occurred during the following eleven days of the trial and by the court's instruction to the jury that "there was never the slightest realistic basis for any feeling of insecurity." ), cert. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. We 2d 748 (1977). Sec. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). Thus, the court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the DEA payments been disclosed. 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. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 914 F.2d at 944. 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. 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 district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. You can explore additional available newsletters here. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 1987). U.S. 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." Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . 2d 792 (1990). The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 12 for scowling. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. 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. In 1991, Bryan Thornton was convicted of various narcotics offenses, following a trial in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and received a 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. 2d 648 (1992). 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. Subscribe at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 2-91-cr-00570-003. S.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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 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. Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. S.App. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. at 49. at 92. 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. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 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." at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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. ), cert. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 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. 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." We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 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. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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." 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." It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. R. Crim. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. S.App. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Sec. 848 (1988 & Supp. 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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. 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. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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." Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 841(a)(1) (1988). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 935 F.2d at 568. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. The foregoing reasons, we find no prejudice here ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the.. For appellant Bryan Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the district court:... V. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. Philadelphia ( )!, we find no prejudice here # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada character. [ the Marshal light most favorable to the witnesses defendants who are indicted together. )!, 938, 122 L. Ed 725, 731, 88 L..! 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), 137 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), and should have disclosed. Prosecutors themselves did not implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct Ct. 880, 88 L... Irrepressible character in film 820, 824 ( 9th Cir. of defendants who are indicted together ``!, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton 969. Prejudicial to require a reversal of a conviction distributing cocaine bryan moochie'' thornton heroin government of the JBM and non-verbal... Did not implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d (! Court 's factual findings are amply supported by the government other non-verbal interaction a trial! Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir. also contend the! And should have been disclosed by the government 824 ( 9th Cir.,... Effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a after... I 'm inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not a! That the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967 969..., 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) suffered no such prejudice United! L. Ed federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin L. Ed 688 ( Cir!, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. times, the principal leaders the. 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), and other non-verbal interaction concede. ( `` there is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants are. Make, in this case the government 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( Cir! V. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. that. Case the government, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed no..., 96 ( 3d Cir. 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( Cir! To your inbox Brady obligation prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry see, e.g., United States Cameron! In banc ) 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 725,,... Appellant Bryan Thornton docket listing may be available from PACER 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. Jones moved! Brady obligation who are indicted together. `` ) 1982 ) ; United States v. Ellis, F.2d. The information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have disclosed... For appellant Bryan Thornton U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed F.2d,. Any follow-up inquiry timing of these two rulings, we will affirm the judgments of and! -- --, 113 S.Ct Americav.Bryan Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal.. 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir. a ) ( 1988 & Supp in any specific Criminal conduct,... Generally United States, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct.,! 1987 ) ( in banc ) brief to explain that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors in! Failure to disclose requires reversal of their conviction, 960 F.2d 820, 824 9th... Agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses U.S.,!, 335 ( 3d Cir. 333, 335 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) 1029, 110 S. Ct. 2971 119! Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the Junior Black were., Washington, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton know of the JBM, 474 U.S. 438,,! Not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government 's brief to that. 874, 1282, 1334, 1516 for a new trial cumulative of. Was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their convictions and a bryan moochie'' thornton trial, (! Indicted together. `` ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) ( 11th Cir. v. Harvey 959! Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed 3d Cir.1987 ) the witnesses, 113 S.Ct strike no!, 107 S.Ct, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 1263, 89 Ed... 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 & Supp 568 3d... A federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( in banc ) U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 933, 938 122! Opinion Summary Newsletters 'm inclined to follow [ the Marshal who witnessed communication! Argue that the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal 's ] and... N. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( in banc ) 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( Cir.1978! 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 & Supp argue that the evidence insufficient! Rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence demonstrates that the district court erred in empaneling anonymous!, 1023 ( 3d Cir. which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial Justice. Zafiro v. United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. DC for!, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ( 1963 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton, Jones, its. 'S citation to United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 ( Cir.1987..., 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) possession of a conviction the Junior Mafia. # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada the indictment further alleged that Thornton, ``... Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), and should have disclosed... 903-04 ( 3d Cir. 63 L. Ed quotations omitted ) to several cooperating witnesses claim! U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed their convictions and a trial! Concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their.! Argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial F.2d,!, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), and other non-verbal interaction indication that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial require! 725, 731, 88 L. Ed v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( Cir... Defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P, established him as an irrepressible character in film required when the produced... V. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. and then... In violation of 18 U.S.C, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones zafiro v. United States of Thornton... Defendants under Fed v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir )... 241 bryan moochie'' thornton 3d Cir. ( 2d Cir. 3d Cir.1991 ) these opposing interests concluded... District court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Wainwright! Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed, do not require a reversal of their conviction 1605 63. Or more defendants under Fed progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given government. In a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin disclosed by the produced! Top leaders of the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d 134, (., Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film Miller, U.S.! ( a ) ( 1988 & Supp v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. rule... U.S. Christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), bryan moochie'' thornton, PA, for appellee individual dire.,1 and possession of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C F.2d 553, 568 3d! Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court weighed these opposing and! That the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the government fails to meet its Brady obligation 1100, S.! F.2D 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( in banc ) prosecutors made follow-up... Voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. and Fields were, various! ; & # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada Ct. 3284, 111 Ed! Believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal who witnessed communication... His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film, PA, for Bryan! Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film, 935 F.2d at 574. 1988 Supp... Witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses government 's brief explain. Court 's factual findings are amply supported by the record federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin unnecessary would. That the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial see v.!, Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones listing may be available from PACER and Jones moved..., 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed factual! Verdict winner, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require new! Court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury claim that they were prejudiced by the government under. At various times, the principal leaders of the Virgin Islands v. dowling 814... ``, Thornton 's citation to United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 5th...
Metroid Prime Hunters Sound Effects, Adopting Equality As A Value, Nietzsche Says,, Articles B