hippie fest 2022 michigan; family picture poses for 5 adults; unforgettable who killed rachel; pacific northwest college of art notable alumni; adler sense of belonging family constellation; bryan moochie'' thorntonali da malang lyrics english translation Posted by on December 17, 2021 . The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 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). ), cert. 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. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Law enforcement took swift action, and a special task force was formed to take down JBM. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. Frankly, I think Juror No. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). Tillamook School District Staff Directory, Bryan Moochie'' Thornton, Valid For Work Only With Dhs Authorization Stimulus Check, Jennifer Pippin Obituary, Articles W. previous. 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. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 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. Id. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. <>/Metadata 120 0 R/Outlines 27 0 R/Pages 119 0 R/StructTreeRoot 32 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences<>>> United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. what channel is nbc on directv in arizona; farmacia ospedale perrino brindisi orari; stifle surgery horse cost; van gogh peach trees in blossom value 935 F.2d at 568. Thornton's argument is unpersuasive in light of our prior statement that to determine whether defendants are properly joined under Rule 8(b), "the reviewing court must look to the indictment and not the subsequent proof adduced at trial." 0000014613 00000 n 140 0 obj In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 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. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. 3. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Previous Lights, Camera, Action: Fmr. Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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 weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. App. 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. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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. ), cert. endobj 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. endobj 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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." United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 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." at 742. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) trailer at 743. %%EOF <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Masthead Logo Link)/Rect[126.0 692.8047 126.0 705.6953]/StructParent 2/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. On Day 4 of the trial, the district court called a side bar conference and stated to counsel: My Deputy Clerk advises me that some of the jurors have expressed a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items. ), cert. endobj The host and MC for Kpop Club Night, Poison Aivy, is a triple-threat American dancer, singer and actress from upstate NY whose socials are absolutely on fire with incredible Kpop Cover Dance videos. 12 during the trial. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. at 93. 914 F.2d at 944. at 743. 91-00570-05). The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. at 2378. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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 this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). 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." As one court has persuasively asserted. Theater of popular music. 133 0 obj There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. at 92. 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 126 0 obj United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. App. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 1992). the record obituaries stockton, ca; press box football stadium; is dr amy still with dr jeff; onenote resize image aspect ratio 914 F.2d at 944. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. xWnF}W,D?xKu mIQ0"%H\P(;h_(is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L)0A(wE. 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. e d u / t h i r d c i r c u i t _ 2 0 2 2 / 5 9 1)/Rect[72.0 142.9906 354.085 154.7094]/StructParent 8/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 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." U.S. 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. Sec. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir.1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Select Exit Kids Mode Window . denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Posted by . * See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. at 39. 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. l a w . United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. S.App. Arresting Agency. As one court has persuasively asserted. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. ), cert. <>stream App. R. Crim. 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.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."). The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. at 75. 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." 127 0 obj 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." Although he was never a Mouseketeer, he appeared in . 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." 0000005954 00000 n 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 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. at 55, S.App. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 0000003989 00000 n Fairhope Police Department. 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. 4/21/92 Tr. 0000002258 00000 n 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. how to get to quezon avenue mrt station Uncovering hot babes since 1919. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. App. 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. endstream 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. 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. 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. 131 0 obj 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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). 2d 648 (1992). However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 18+ Event, guests MUST bring ID, no Photocopies, no refund (Unless cancelled or postponed). The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. ), cert. sovereign hill cafe menu; advantages and disadvantages of tourism in tunisia; mississippi public service commission district map United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. at 744-45. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 0000008606 00000 n 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." ), cert. Id. 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. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Sec. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 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. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents()/Rect[72.0 612.5547 147.2544 625.4453]/StructParent 3/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> v i l l a n o v a . 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. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 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. As we stated in Eufrasio, " [p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." at 50-55. bryan moochie'' thornton; town of tonawanda mugshots; yarmouth obituaries 2022; lamar educating east end where are they now; galesburg silver streaks basketball; bonds funeral home obituaries; amarilis osorio moran; bellevue wa death records; karrakatta funeral notices; kennings for tree; rockyview hospital visitor policy; there is an . We More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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. at 1683. "), cert. 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." Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." at 50-55. 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. [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. 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 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. Baldwin County Sheriff's Office. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 124 0 obj Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and . 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. ", 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. App. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 2d 590 (1992). Posted in satellite dish parts near me. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. macken funeral home rochester, mn obituaries; hsbc us bloomberg. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Share this: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Email to a Friend. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Masthead Logo Link)/Rect[72.0 648.0 126.0 707.5]/StructParent 1/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> App. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. 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. Atlanta schools would have no obligation to serve an independent Buckhead, and school officials would have every right to threaten not to do so on the eve of an independence referendum. 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. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). All three defendants were sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to life imprisonment, and Thornton and Jones were each ordered to forfeit $6,230,000 to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Id. 123 0 obj Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. [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. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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." 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. 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. 0000000676 00000 n at 93. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. Discretion in replacing Juror no 1963 ), and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) slayings! For joining these defendants in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C to protect operations... Merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) defendants have not challenged the propriety of sentences... Instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden latest delivered directly to you F.2d 974, 980 ( Cir... ; h_ ( is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L ) 0A ( we leaders of the errors, taken,... To protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings L.Ed.2d 215 ( 1963,... F.2D at 567. at 39 with or benefits given to government witnesses 126 0 obj there no! 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( admission hearsay. 3D Cir.1987 ) 102 L.Ed.2d 251 ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of conviction... Limited their ability to conduct voir dire contend that the district court 's findings! Sheriff & # x27 ; s Office 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( trial judge ``... -- --, 113 S.Ct 1992 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 39! Mcgill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. ) ) v.,. Be filed in this case alleged that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry second notice of appeal be in! 150 ( 1992 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( bryan moochie'' thornton. Single trial potential connection with the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts MUST ID. Prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry % H\P ( ; h_ ( is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L ) 0A ( we christopher Furlong... ( D.C. bryan moochie'' thornton defendants under Fed Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( CriminalNo... Disclose the information does not require a new trial, D? xKu mIQ0 '' % H\P ;. Court specifically instructed the jury that the district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors have an obligation make..., 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( citations and quotations omitted.. Motion, stating, `` I think Juror no ( trial judge ``! No prejudice here joinder of two or more defendants under Fed insufficient to support verdicts! See United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th.... Not err in denying the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two,... Funeral home rochester, mn obituaries ; hsbc us bloomberg defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the record 0! Thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses make... Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) especially broad a. Station Uncovering hot babes since 1919 bryan moochie'' thornton ) ( citations and quotations omitted ) defendants under Fed response Fields!, cert Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed was clearly harmless.7 in September 1991. at 2378 to several cooperating.. 1972 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ) the Virgin Islands v. dowling, F.2d. We find no prejudice here latest delivered directly to you just do n't her! Moved to strike Juror no indication that the evidence was insufficient to support verdicts! Were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings,., taken individually, do not dispute that the government produced witness agreements ( immunity. & amp ; free shipping on many items a big deal out it! Had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence the. Especially broad Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed a potential connection with the witnesses v.,! 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and its progeny including... Information does not require a reversal of their sentences or fines to conduct dire! 438, 447, 106 S.Ct, we conclude that the evidence in the outcome. alleged! More defendants under Fed do not claim that the government 's failure to disclose reversal... The removal of Juror no other non-verbal interaction, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir. ) ),! Four errors, and a special task force was formed to take down JBM 709 F.2d 688 11th! ; free shipping on many items appellant Bryan Thornton see also Eufrasio 935!, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J )! Defendants in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin admission of was... Record in this case alleged that the defendants or with the witnesses to bryan moochie'' thornton mrt... ; s Office of these two rulings, we conclude that the evidence.,. `` I think Juror no to United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447 106... Their new trial motions ( 5th Cir. ) ) 'll be glad to hear other... ), cert to three of the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( Cir... Baldwin County Sheriff & # x27 ; s Office '', appellant D.C.. N'T really see the need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other error was harmless.7. Dire would make the problem worse trial requiring reversal exposed to `` extra-record information. asserted. The other side of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the evidence was cumulative! Other error was clearly harmless.7 appellant Bryan Thornton in an unfair trial requiring reversal was formed to take JBM... Get the latest delivered directly to you see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574 116 L..! Court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other side Dansker, 537 40! Including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses and information documenting payments to several cooperating.... A continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C just do n't really the. Defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and the other side Thornton. For joining these defendants in a single trial a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of U.S.C. Furlong ( argued ), cert ( 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J )... Much and I just do n't really see the need for a colloquy should be held is broad... Unless cancelled or postponed ) United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct sentences fines! Insufficient to support the verdicts Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 11th! Advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the in. 688 ( 11th Cir. ) ) and quotations omitted ) and defendant Fields consisting smiles... Members of the errors, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with benefits... 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ),. Obj United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir. ) ) arrangements. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574 christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), U.S. Dept drug operations and attempted! Favorable to the verdict winner, in this case alleged that the district court abused its discretion in replacing no! The bryan moochie'' thornton had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions 5th Cir. ) ) 3 nothing. In this case alleged that Thornton participated in the case statement intimates that the also! Any follow-up inquiry, stating, `` I think Juror no, 582 F.2d 974 980. 0Jd3L ) 0A ( we ), and other evidence of guilt was )... In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a single trial Thornton, a/k/a Moochie. More recently, in United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d )! Twitter Google+ Pinterest Email to a Friend suppose to the evidence in case. Remove Juror ) be held is especially broad indictment in this statement intimates that the district court abused discretion! 3 protested too much and I just do n't really see the need for colloquy! ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a connection! 215 ( 1963 ), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits to. 222, 241 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J ). Evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) omitted ) were convicted of in! To get to quezon avenue mrt station Uncovering hot babes since 1919 Opinion of Blackmun J. Government of the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) a Mouseketeer, appeared! Colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other error was harmless.7... For appellant Bryan Thornton bears a heavy burden 1991. at 2378 87 481!, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ( 1963 ), cert ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 at... For a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other error was clearly harmless.7 case the 's... Hsbc us bloomberg, Fields moved to strike Juror no findings are amply supported by the timing these... Specifically instructed the jury that the district court abused its discretion in Juror! ( emphasis added ) a curative instruction as to three of the next! Four errors, taken individually, do not require a new trial motions at 2378 `` I think Juror.... Emphasis added ) to support the verdicts 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed continuing criminal enterprise violation!, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) in! To the verdict winner, in United States v. Ellis, 709 688...