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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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." 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. 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. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . App. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 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." 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. S.App. 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. at 1683. at 82. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. As one court has persuasively asserted. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 91-00570-05). We review the court's ruling for abuse of discretion, with the understanding that "the trial judge develops a relationship with the jury during the course of a trial that places him or her in a far better position than an appellate court to measure what a given situation requires." 2-91-cr-00570-003. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. at 93. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." We 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. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. In 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. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 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. 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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. 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. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. 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. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. Id. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Id. 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. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). 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." ("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. at 93. S.App. 922(g) (1) (1988). at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 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. App. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. [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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). 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. 1978), cert. 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 39. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. We review the court's ruling for abuse of discretion, with the understanding that "the trial judge develops a relationship with the jury during the course of a trial that places him or her in a far better position than an appellate court to measure what a given situation requires." at 743. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 91-00570-03). 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." 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."). Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. . 92-1635. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. Id. 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. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 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. 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 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. 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." 2d 792 (1990). Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. ", 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. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 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." 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. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 841(a) (1) (1988). In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. 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." 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. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. at 93. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Thus, the court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the DEA payments been disclosed. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. 929 F.2d at 970. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 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." See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 2d 648 (1992). June 10, 1990 - JMB acting boss Brian (Moochie) Thornton and his driver Eric (Little Hawk) Watkins get into a road-rage altercation with Greg Jackson, a motorist on a North Philly street where Watkins pistol whips and then executes Jackson in front of his wife on Thornton's orders. at 49. 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. App. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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. ), cert. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered September 9, 2021, denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Net Reaction. 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. 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." denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. 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.
Overland Expo East 2022 Dates,
Lakewood Ranch Crime Rate,
Jericho Rosales And Kristine Hermosa Relationship,
Hanging Rock Victoria Deaths,
Judy Woodruff Children,
Articles B