Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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. 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. 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. ("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. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. * Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. at 55, S.App. 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." at 742. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 1987). Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. ), cert. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 929 F.2d at 970. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 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." About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Sec. at 92 (record citations omitted). denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. 4/21/92 Tr. at 93. Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. 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. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. App. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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. App. You can explore additional available newsletters here. App. [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. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. 12 for scowling. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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. Bucky was. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 914 F.2d at 944. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 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." [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. 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. 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. 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. 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required."). We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. 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. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 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. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Tuesday, April 7, 1992 about almost monthly runs to Florida for purchases by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer Two witnesses said . On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 935 F.2d at 568. . Nashville, TN. 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. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 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. Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. "), cert. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). App. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 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. We disagree. As one court has persuasively asserted. Sec. 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." That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. 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. at 75. R. Crim. Sec. ", 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. U.S. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 1991), cert. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. 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." App. S.App. 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. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 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." About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. at 1683. 3582(c)(2). It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. 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. at 1683. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 922(g) (1) (1988). The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 91-00570-03). Cart 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. 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. Frankly, I think Juror No. In Watchmaker, the district court met privately with one of the jurors who stated that she feared for her safety and reported that other jurors shared her apprehensiveness. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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." Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. ), cert. 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. 853 (1988). Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. ("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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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 You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 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. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 App. (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 848 (1988 & Supp. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). ), cert. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 1987) (in banc). 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. "), cert. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. 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. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir.1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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." 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." United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). ", 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. 2d 648 (1992). In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 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. at 93. S.App. 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. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 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." of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Friday, October 4, 1991 IA DAILY NEWS PAGE 3 FBI agent ignored his family ties by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer It's a safe bet that . Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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." As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. The 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." 853 (1988). The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 2d 789 (1980). 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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." ), cert. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 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. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Michael Baylson, U.S. 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. You're all set! 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. ), cert. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. Precedential, Citations: See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Id. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 2d 280 (1991). Subscribe Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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." denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. 91-00570-03). at 50-55. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 1976), cert. 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. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. Id. What does your number mean? 12 during the trial. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. Net Reaction. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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 this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. 841(a) (1) (1988). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. at 92. 91-00570-03). denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 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 district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. 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. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her
Girl Says She Doesn't Know Me Well Enough, Wallingford Police Blotter 2022, Reflective Curb Paint, Stephanie Shepherd Birthday, Angel Zateel, George Clooney Sister Disabled, Midnight Assassin Hossack, Right To Know Arkansas Teacher Salaries, Samurai Flag Ajpw Worth, Aprr Toll Tag,