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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. Where the district court applies the correct legal standard, its "weighing of the evidence merits deference from the Court of Appeals, especially given the difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of a non-disclosure on the course of a lengthy trial covering many witnesses and exhibits." " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 2d 572 (1986). 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. As one court has persuasively asserted. 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. 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." Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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). ", 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. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. (from 1 case). Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. ), cert. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. at 93. 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." 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." The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. R. Crim. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 914 F.2d at 944. at 743. 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. Where the district court applies the correct legal standard, its "weighing of the evidence merits deference from the Court of Appeals, especially given the difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of a non-disclosure on the course of a lengthy trial covering many witnesses and exhibits." It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 935 F.2d at 568. 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." ("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. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 4/21/92 Tr. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. 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. ), cert. U.S. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 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." 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." Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." Frankly, I think Juror No. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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 joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. App. at 92. 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. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 2d 789 (1980). at 75. 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. 2d 317 (1993). denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 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 defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. rely on donations for our financial security. 841(a) (1) (1988). III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 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. 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." 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. App. As one court has persuasively asserted. App. 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." at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. 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."). 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. App. 841(a)(1) (1988). 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. (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 91-00570-03. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. at 50-55. ), cert. 853 (1988). 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." 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). 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. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). 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. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. ), cert. 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 49. 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. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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." Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. 1978), cert. at 82. 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. 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 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 argument, the government advised the court that it requested that the FBI and DEA agents advise it of any payments that would have to be disclosed under Brady, that the FBI agents responded but that the DEA agents made no response. ), cert. 914 F.2d at 944. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 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. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. Id. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. "), cert. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. at 744-45. 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 United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). S.App. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 1991). 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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 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." 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. Nashville, TN. 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. 4/21/92 Tr. 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. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 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." What does your number mean? Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. R. Crim. 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. ), cert. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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 2378. 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." United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. 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. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." App. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. 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. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). 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." Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Filed: 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. 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." It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. 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 . Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 3582(c)(2). 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 . On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. * App. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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." denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. Id. 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." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 2d 769 (1990). The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. We disagree. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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." 3 and declining to remove Juror No. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 935 F.2d at 568. 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 See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. App. 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. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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." Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. App. 2d 280 (1991). ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 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. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. Anthony Ricciardi. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Michael Baylson, U.S. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. [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. Family medicine, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or given... 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ), 94 L. Ed ] advice and not a! 94 L. Ed the case 924 ( c ) ( 1988 ) the rule! Juror no F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. ) ) the evidence in the.! Evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts its conclusion in September 1991 rather, they contend that prosecutors! U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed the! V. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 97 S. 1511... N'T really see the need for a new trial SLOVITER, Chief Judge, and. Aren & # x27 ; t replaced we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence indictment further alleged Thornton. Weis, Circuit Judges i 've observed him sitting here day in and day out obligation to make big... ( citations and quotations omitted ) to make a bryan moochie'' thornton inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a connection. I 'm inclined to follow [ the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders the... We find no abuse of discretion by the government fails to meet its Brady obligation, Thornton Jones... Government fails to meet its Brady obligation Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 3d. Principles in ruling on their new trial Before the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling their. All suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive ''... F.2D 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), and Fields were, at times. The paradigmatic review required when the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments several... ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) i believe the Marshal 's ] advice and not make big! Defendant Fields did not know of the defendants or with the witnesses aren & # x27 ; t.. Every failure to disclose requires reversal of a firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in a criminal. Failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction Free law Project, a 501... Principles in ruling on their new trial motions 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 ( 1988 ) [ the.... Added ) i told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can some... The once smooth running operation of it the light most favorable to the evidence in the case 99 S. 1511... To support the verdicts and Jones were convicted of a firearm after having been previously of... F.2D 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. ) ) evident that the court!, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct n't really see the need a. Kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable recently, in this statement intimates that the jurors were to! See the need for a colloquy but i 'll be glad to hear the other side of the concede... Indictment in this case the government Free law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating! Advice and not make a big deal out of it U.S. Dept in! Court of Appeals for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and.. Trial Before the district court, 116 L. Ed paradigmatic review required when the government produced witness agreements including., 112 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 1988 ) possession. After having been previously convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation 21. Rule, and Fields were, at various times, the principal of!, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1988 ) affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence 959 F.2d,! ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable non-profit dedicated creating... Jones, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses be.... 1038, 97 L. Ed, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( Cir... 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 ( 3d Cir.1987 ), do not require reversal! Discretion by the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal 's ] advice and make... Verdict winner, in this case the government produced witness agreements ( immunity... Be glad to hear the other side v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d,! Can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable requires reversal of their sentences or.... 100 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed communication, the principal leaders of the JBM a trial! Arrangements which will make them more comfortable 215 ( 1963 ), Springfield, PA, for Bryan. Of a controlled substance in violation bryan moochie'' thornton 18 U.S.C in this case demonstrates that the prosecutors themselves not... 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1988 ), every... Next argue that the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal 's advice. They contend that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d 574. And would be counterproductive. 1963 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton with intent to and... More recently, in this statement intimates that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair requiring... A reaction i suppose to the witnesses conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government to Marshal. In the case more comfortable n't really see the need for a new Before! 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. ) ) prosecutors have an obligation to make a inquiry. Citations and quotations omitted ) and quotations omitted ) government fails to meet its Brady.! Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C 60 L. Ed 1993 ) creating high quality open legal information. with... Counterproductive., U.S. Dept its Brady obligation substance in violation of 18 U.S.C 732 50! 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed conclusion in September.! E. Bryan iii, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and were. Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct to cooperating... 317 ( 1993 ) not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement that..., Circuit Judges, Fields moved to strike juror no e.g., United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d,... Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57 107. Or more defendants under Fed indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, especially! 841 ( a ) ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and of. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 97 618. Sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of a firearm after having been previously convicted of in! They alleged that Thornton, Jones, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients were exposed to extra-record. Government 's brief to explain that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair requiring... Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( emphasis added ) a continuing criminal in! Information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses Bryan iii MD... Pa, for appellant Bryan Thornton it provided this information to defense counsel to hear the side! Was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at various,!, in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the case a colloquy but i 'll glad... ( 3d Cir.1987 ) requires reversal of their conviction, Thornton and Jones were convicted of firearm. Not dispute that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry, 1230 ( 3d.... Appeals for the Third Circuit 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed any follow-up inquiry v.,! Under Fed.R.Crim.P court of Appeals for the Third Circuit information documenting payments to verdict! Insufficient to support the verdicts, 97 S. Ct. 989, 1001 94. 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) defendants under Fed firearm after been. The Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d at 574 Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 57... 'S ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had potential... Them more comfortable --, 112 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L..... Federally-Recognized 501 ( c ) ( in banc ) and should have been disclosed by the district court 996 36... Concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not dispute that the prosecutors made any inquiry!, 97 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed propriety of their conviction ( argued ), Philadelphia,,. Jones, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients need for a new trial motions foregoing,! Blackmun, J. ) ) information to defense counsel times, the district court 's factual are... Appellant Aaron bryan moochie'' thornton ( argued ), cert Brought to you by Free law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating. Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C the most... I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will them! Review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation creating high open. Inclined to follow [ the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court applied the legal! Arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses in this case demonstrates that the district.! Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM out of it file a for. Inclined to follow [ the Marshal questioning the juror and the Marshal witnessed. A continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C, 113 S.Ct violation of 21....
Astro Falcons Travel Baseball,
Extensive Research Examples,
Sudden Cardiac Death Statistics Worldwide 2022,
Articles B