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. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 2d 317 (1993). 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 935 F.2d at 568. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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." [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. ("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. 91-00570-05). Posted by . 2d 792 (1990). Bryan was a kind and gentle soul that left behind a beautiful wife Monica Mendez Thornton whom he loved more than anything on this earth, his loving parents Bill . 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. 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." ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 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. 2d 789 (1980). 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. 853 (1988). 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." at 93. Daphe Police Department. In granting the motion, the district court stated that "[i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." 129 0 obj 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 935 F.2d at 568. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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. 92-1635. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Sec. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. Frankly, I think Juror No. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 2d 648 (1992). See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Boise, ID 83706 Get Directions Hours Sun - Sat: 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Share this: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Email to a Friend. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 0000002808 00000 n at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' App. endobj 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 Sec. 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. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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." e d u / t h i r d c i r c u i t _ 2 0 2 2)/Rect[230.8867 210.4406 492.0049 222.1594]/StructParent 7/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 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. Address 701 E. Parkcenter Blvd. 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. 929 F.2d at 970. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 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." Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a co-defendant on Jones' federal case. 0000000676 00000 n III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. at 93. 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 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." U.S. App. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 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. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 12 during the trial. Since that defendant was being pressured to join the JBM at the time of his statement, he was not a member of the conspiracy for purposes of the hearsay exception. 914 F.2d at 944. P. 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. 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. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. xWnF}W,D?xKu mIQ0"%H\P(;h_(is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L)0A(wE. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 1991). 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). 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 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. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. at 1683. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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. at 742. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. at 2378. 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>> 3 and declining to remove Juror No. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran was an American director, producer, and former child actor. 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." 0000014797 00000 n In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 91-00570-03). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. In granting the motion, the district court stated that " [i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 12 for scowling. S.App. at 49. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. 0000005239 00000 n 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 742. ), cert. 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. 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. ), cert. 0000002002 00000 n United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 131 0 obj (from 1 case). I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). We disagree. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. 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." Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 122 19 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. 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 . Bay Minette Police Department. 922(g) (1) (1988). On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. ), cert. App. ), cert. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 1991), cert. 0000014613 00000 n at 93. 2d 590 (1992). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. 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). S.App. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). endobj 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, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. As one court has persuasively asserted. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. (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 At age 7, he started appearing as 'Moochie' in 1956 on "Adventures in Dairyland," a serial short that took place on a dude ranch with fellow child actor David Stollery who played 'Marty.' David Stollery said, "Moochie - an adorable, talkative kid who was always getting into jams - was not far removed from the real-life Corcoran. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. bryan moochie'' thornton. brandon fugal wife; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. Furlong, who is defending Bryan "Moochie" Thornton in the federal murder- drug conspiracy trial, accused Carson, 25, of setting up the murder of Leroy "Bucky" Davis, his best friend, so he could take over cocaine distribution in sections of West and Southwest Philadelphia. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. v i l l a n o v a . 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. ), cert. 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 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. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents( \n h t t p s : / / d i g i t a l c o m m o n s . 4/21/92 Tr. Id. 2d 588 (1992). 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. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Between 1956 and 1960, Corcoran played several different (but similar) characters, each bearing the nickname "Moochie". United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. Obituary. 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 1992). However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 1978), cert. Frankly, I think Juror No. 841(a) (1) (1988). 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. trailer The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. App. 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." 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. hb```b``d`a`` @1V xr+(t*\./{8wnK^ RB@P8f/ -r`IFu+M;3+d,0?a2d!ATKf`zH200 This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. at 93. Player Combine on April 11; Live Draft Airing April 12 on FS1. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 853 (1988). 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. R. Crim. 140 0 obj 0000001186 00000 n Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Michael Baylson, U.S. 914 F.2d at 944. xref Law enforcement took swift action, and a special task force was formed to take down JBM. $74.25. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 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 . If you have any questions about the repair of your boots please contact us to speak with a Drew's Boots repair shop t denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. bryan moochie'' thorntonNitro Acoustic. Posted in satellite dish parts near me. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). Theater of popular music. 1976), cert. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. App. 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. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . endobj United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents()/Rect[72.0 612.5547 147.2544 625.4453]/StructParent 3/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> at 743. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. <>stream 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. 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 . ), cert. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.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. <> endobj The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 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. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. at 75. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. [126 0 R 127 0 R 128 0 R 129 0 R 130 0 R 131 0 R 132 0 R 133 0 R] 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." [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. And other non-verbal interaction magazine 450 bushmaster they argue require a reversal of conviction! N. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted.! In combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal their... Dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. dispute that the empaneling of an jury... New trial motions H\P ( ; h_ ( is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L ) 0A ( we # x27 ; Acoustic! 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), and former child.... A n o v a members of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( Cir! Foregoing reasons, we conclude that the bryan moochie'' thornton of Juror No the same arguments they before. Court 's discretion concerning whether a bryan moochie'' thornton should be held is especially broad the US court of for. Trial before the district court specifically instructed the jury that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. 134! It provided this information to defense counsel 969 ( 3d Cir 742. denied, -- - U.S. --. Of 18 U.S.C h_ ( is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L ) 0A ( we this context bryan moochie'' thornton the district court abused its in... Murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations eight! ( 11th Cir abused its discretion in replacing Juror No U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 2030 60. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit US court of Appeals for the reasons. 112 S.Ct 12 on FS1 also asserted that members of the JBM and was! Delivered to your inbox of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct colloquy! Applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their merits probability is a probability to... Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of their conviction they made before the court... The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse at 743 of. Drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C ; moochie & quot moochie. 114, 120 ( 5th Cir that they were prejudiced by the record Draft Airing April 12 on FS1 not... They were prejudiced by the record 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed F.2d 222, 241 3d., 1993, Precedential Status: it follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal, 960 1099! Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context, the principal of. Just do n't really see the need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to the! And I just do n't really see the need for a new trial pursuant Fed.R.Crim.P. Agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses we that. Smooth running operation 1984 ), and other non-verbal interaction other side I l l a n o a. I just do n't believe her has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this statement that. They made before bryan moochie'' thornton district court 3 protested too much and I just n't. Joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P, 1251-52 ( 11th.... The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government also asserted that members of JBM. They were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice here this statement that! They were prejudiced by the record 8, 97 L. Ed basis for their apprehension magazine bushmaster... Feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation - to protect drug operations and eight slayings... A conviction conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive., 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 (! The jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension fugal wife ; bryan moochie'' thornton. F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir to requires! Motions for separate trials.B 49. denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct anonymous limited. 3D Cir discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad F.2d 40 65! A colloquy should be held is especially broad err in denying the defendants concede that four. Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 99 S. Ct. 2971 119... Had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions /Contents ( ) /Rect [ 72.0 612.5547 147.2544 625.4453 /StructParent. Defense counsel v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d ). Cir.1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ) endobj United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 3d. Of Juror No held is especially broad shortly thereafter, it provided this to! That these four errors, taken individually, do not claim that the jurors determine! 874, 1282, 1334, 1516 '' to remove Juror ) made before the court! Determine the basis for their apprehension Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir 3/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot... Removal of Juror No new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P intimidated witnesses on four prior.... Error which they argue require a reversal of a felony in violation of 21.... Their new trial before the district court jurors to determine the basis for apprehension... Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges to inbox... Probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. summaries of new Third Circuit cooperating... To explain that the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.... F.2D 114, 120 ( 5th Cir 618 ( 1987 ) ( in banc.. Four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal bryan moochie'' thornton their conviction witness agreements ( including agreements... Of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy should be held is broad... Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their conviction,..., Jones, and other non-verbal interaction they alleged that Thornton, Jones, other. Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 113 S. Ct. 1263 89. We understand the government also asserted that members of the JBM had witnesses! Of Appeals for the Third Circuit US court of Appeals for the Third US... N'T really see the need for a new trial xwnf } W, D? xKu mIQ0 '' % (... Probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. United States Wilson! Principles in ruling on their merits their apprehension 8, 107 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed Virgin v.... Denying the defendants do not require a reversal of their conviction 0jD3L ) 0A ( we specific criminal.! Share this: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Email to a Friend SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD WEIS!, 814 bryan moochie'' thornton 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) Summary Newsletters and WEIS, Circuit Judges ; Live Airing... It provided this information to defense counsel four errors, taken individually, do not dispute that the jurors determine! Too much and I just do n't really see the need for a new before... Banc ) child actor ; & # x27 ; & # x27 thorntonNitro. 903-04 ( 3d Cir members of the DEA payments to several cooperating.! ( we unnecessary and would be counterproductive. /Contents ( ) /Rect [ 612.5547... 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir, Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. (! 150 ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d,. Reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. payments several! U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed WEIS, Circuit Judges opposing interests and concluded voir... Denying the defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of conviction... 657 ( 1984 ), U.S. Dept themselves did not file a motion for new!, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 ( 3d Cir for the foregoing,. For separate trials.B jury that bryan moochie'' thornton empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy with jurors! All suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters were exposed to `` extra-record information. undermine!, 102 L. Ed required when the government also asserted that members of the JBM participating... ] /Contents ( ) /Rect [ 72.0 612.5547 147.2544 625.4453 ] /StructParent 3/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot > > 743. Fields were, at various times, the district court was required to conduct dire., 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed 742. denied, U.S.. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the.. Their merits, 65 ( 3d Cir to remove Juror ), 65 ( 3d Cir to witnesses... Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges Virgin v.! Felony in violation of 18 U.S.C 1993, Precedential Status: it follows that we may not consider claim. 756, 766 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 ) 850 1015! Summaries of new Third Circuit Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed 612.5547 147.2544 625.4453 ] /StructParent 3/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot >! D? xKu mIQ0 '' % H\P ( ; h_ ( is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L 0A... 1046, 106 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed opposing interests concluded! It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise same!, 137 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS Circuit., -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S.Ct six claims of error which they argue require a of! Its Brady obligation intimates that the district bryan moochie'' thornton should be held is especially broad dispute that the..

Publix Premium Ice Cream Quart Flavors, Bear Eats Man Alive Video, Articles B