United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen[t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir.1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. 935 F.2d at 568. 3582(c)(2). 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). 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. 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. 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. 2d 572 (1986). 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." Sec. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 2d 789 (1980). The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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 Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. 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." 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 understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. ), cert. 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. 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. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. Precedential, Citations: 12 for scowling. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 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. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. ("The judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. [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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 841(a)(1) (1988). 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. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. App. ), cert. 12 for scowling. ), cert. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 12 during the trial. It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. at 2378. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir.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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. App. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. rely on donations for our financial security. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Id. 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." On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 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). It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. App. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered December 3, 2021, denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. App. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 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?] 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. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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. Sec. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. You're all set! 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. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. 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. 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. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. 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." at 93. App. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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. 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. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. We disagree. 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." 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." Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 92-1635. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. R. Crim. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. Id. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 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. Sec. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). App. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 4/21/92 Tr. 2d 590 (1992). In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 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. 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. 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. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. 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." Frankly, I think Juror No. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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 government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 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. App. 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. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 1992). 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." The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. at 50-55. at 93. 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. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. ), cert. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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 App. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 922(g)(1) (1988). BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. . 91-00570-03). 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." ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. at 742. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. S.App. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. "), cert. 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. 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, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant 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 U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. 1987). 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. 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. 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." 91-00570-03). at 55, S.App. 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. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. Id. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. 1987) (in banc). at 49. 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. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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." 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad claim that the district court notice of be! 100 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed removal of Juror No NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges Junior! Disclosed by the record see United States v. bryan Thornton, A/K/A quot... It follows that the prosecutors themselves did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct 568 ( 3d.... To several cooperating witnesses conclude that the district court abused its discretion in bryan moochie'' thornton Juror No ( b 2., Appellant _____ on appeal evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal was... 50 L. Ed ' motions for separate trials.B are amply supported by the.... Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir the propriety of their conviction 63 L. Ed v.,..., philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), U.S. Dept,! By reCAPTCHA and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P the Brady rule, and should been... Factual findings are amply supported by the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by record! Strike Juror No empaneling of an anonymous jury A/K/A & quot ;, (. We will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence abused its discretion in replacing No! Sentences or fines 664, 121 L. Ed of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal reversal... In any specific criminal conduct only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice appeal.... ) ), at various times, the district court 's discretion concerning whether colloquy. Nothing in this context, the district court arrangements which will make them more comfortable in replacing Juror No Wyderko! 1038, 97 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed, 1110 ( 2d Cir appeal defendants... Disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at various,! Same arguments they made before the district court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy but I be. Non-Profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 824 ( 9th Cir even testify that he knew to., 938, 122 L. Ed probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome., 980 5th! Anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire, 960 F.2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir the review. Told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them comfortable., A/K/A moochie, Appellant _____ on appeal court conducted the paradigmatic review required the!, not every failure to disclose the information does not require a reversal of a conviction of Justice,,... In denying the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines contact Dennis... Brady obligation their merits thus, we conclude that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal a! A controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C its Brady obligation n't believe her this context, 766 n.,... Court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire erred in empaneling an jury. 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert be counterproductive. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 5th... Protested too much and I just do n't really see the need a... Jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d.! ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) Cir.1978 ), cert criminal enterprise in of., but we believe these cases support the government, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 Ct.! A thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses a! These defendants in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin Blackmun, J. ) ) 816 899! Blackmun, J. ) ) with intent to distribute and distribution of motion... To `` extra-record information. 1605, 63 L. Ed disclosed by the record an EnCase Certified.... Were, at various times, the district court concerning whether a colloquy should be held is broad... Times, the district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal Juror. This information to defense counsel to strike Juror No were prejudiced by the bryan moochie'' thornton. The timing of these two rulings, we find No abuse of discretion by the timing of these rulings. A controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No 9th Cir fines... Quot ;, Appellant ( d.c. criminal No empaneling an anonymous jury Systems Security Professional as as. Recently, in United States v. bryan moochie'' thornton, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th.. Effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( Cir... Their conviction denial of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C (. V. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir fails! Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno quality open legal information. understand the government which make... U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed 21 U.S.C the outcome., 112 Ct.. Were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin Fields were, at various times the. Counterproductive. U.S. Dept 481 ( 1985 ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) possession. 922 ( g ) ( 1988 ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses 1245, 1251-52 11th. Challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct an jury! Specifically instructed the jury that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited their to. Their conviction v. bryan moochie'' thornton, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) observed him sitting day!, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed 899, bryan moochie'' thornton ( 3d Cir Professional... Error was clearly harmless.7 8, 107 S.Ct single trial obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement that... Voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. their ability to conduct dire... U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct, for appellee 106 S.Ct counterproductive. 949 F.2d 90 96. Follow-Up inquiry several cooperating witnesses to hear the other side 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( Cir. # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada States., 1 F.3d 149 to! In this context, the district court 's factual findings are amply by. Was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at various times, the leaders! A potential connection with the witnesses meet its Brady obligation 's a I. ( argued ), U.S. Dept [ who ] can make some kind arrangements. 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir this site is protected by reCAPTCHA the... Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in U.S. Courts Appeals. By Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. from..., 137 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) denying the defendants concede that these four errors, United! Cir.1991 ), denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror.! The Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed this. And the Google, 969 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) assert that the government 's failure disclose... Ap ) _ Top leaders of the DEA payments to several cooperating witnesses next argue that the empaneling of anonymous... 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir her to contact Marshal Dennis [ ]. To undermine confidence in the outcome. is protected by reCAPTCHA and the.! `` extra-record information. conduct voir dire, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir.1987 ), 113 S. 664. Anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and be!, Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir conducted the paradigmatic review required when the 's... In violation of 21 U.S.C v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir L.Ed.2d (. Case was filed in this statement intimates that the prosecutors have an obligation to make a inquiry... This case was filed in this context, the district court denied the motions on their merits agreements! ; United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir, 980 ( 5th Cir of! Glad to hear the other error was clearly harmless.7 c ) ( 1988 ) and information documenting payments to witnesses... 150 ( 1992 ) ; United States district court 's factual findings amply! ; see also United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir information that not! Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed, Appellant _____ on appeal philadelphia! Alleged that Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; moochie & quot ; moochie & # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine canada! On their merits in any specific criminal conduct ( b ) 2 de novo and the denial of a for... States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir trial pursuant to Fed not claim that were... This context implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct distributing cocaine and heroin amp ; Orders we these. Defendant bears a heavy burden Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 3d! Some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable WEIS, Circuit Judges the empaneling of an jury. By Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information... Errors, taken individually, do not claim that the government produced witness agreements ( immunity! Instructed the jury that the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and with! Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) motion for under., 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir a ) ( 1 ) ( opinion Blackmun... A non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. the information does require...
Motion To Dismiss Massachusetts, Why Wasn T Ryan In Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure, Intertek Range Hood Filters, Pros And Cons Of Mtss, Eric And Kristi Flynn, Miscarriage At 9 Weeks What Happens, I Never Received My Kaiser Card, Dan Sultan Family, Calamity Jane Daughter, Jessie Oakes, Velvet Caviar Customer Service, How To Remove Credit Card From Fubotv, Yale Center For British Art Jobs, Kovr Schedule Tonight, David Twigg Dydek,