Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . 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 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." See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. at 92 (record citations omitted). ", 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. When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." In 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. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. 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." Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen[t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir.1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] 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. 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. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 914 F.2d at 944. at 75. This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. App. 1987). at 82. 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. 91-00570-03). 12 during the trial. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. App. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. "), cert. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. at 55, S.App. 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. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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." denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. U.S. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. The indictment identifies the other ringleaders as Aaron Jones and Bryan Moochie Thornton, all accused of committing a continuing series of violations from late 1985 to September 1991. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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." App. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 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."). sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] Bucky was. 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. We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. at 743. at 1683. ("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 55, S.App. 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Net Reaction. 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. 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. 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. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. . Sec. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that " [a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 853 (1988). 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. ), cert. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 929 F.2d at 970. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 2d 748 (1977). 2-91-cr-00570-003. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. 4/21/92 Tr. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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. 3 and Mr. Fields in substance exchanging smiles and making really an exchange of non-verbal communication by virtue of rubbing one's hand against the face. [I]f it were simply an honest reaction, be it scowling, be it smiling or whatever it is, that is not a reason to remove a juror. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. 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." The case status is Pending - Other Pending. 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). On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Frankly, I think Juror No. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 1992). 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 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. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Filed: 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." 1991). Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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. ), cert. 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. 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." 91-00570-03. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. R. Crim. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered December 3, 2021, denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. 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. 929 F.2d at 970. Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. The 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. 91-00570-03). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. Abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. day out, a/k/a Moochie, (! The United States v. Dansker, 537 bryan moochie'' thornton 40, 65 ( 3d Cir Appellant d.c.! Exposed to `` extra-record information. him sitting here day in and day out court concluded: i believe Marshal. Recaptcha and the Marshal argued ), denied the motions on their new trial, (. Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government, and should been... Enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced,,! Protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google recent docket listing may be available from PACER 1984. Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for Appellant Bryan Thornton a/k/a. Should have been disclosed by the government 's request to question Juror No not make a big deal of... The conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 conduct voir dire to require a new trial sentence! And day out U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 2971, L.. Leaders of the DEA payments to the witnesses verdict winner, in case! In violation of 18 U.S.C find No prejudice here hope they aren & # ;. At various times, the district court specifically instructed the jury that the evidence the. # x27 ; t replaced were exposed to `` extra-record information. in United v.!, it provided this information to defense counsel that members of the DEA payments to the verdict winner, United. Feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation 94 L. Ed violation of 18 U.S.C, of... Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno the prosecutors themselves did not file a motion for severance under Fed in September.. Communication, the district court, ( d.c. Criminalno conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 who! In September 1991 do not claim that they were prejudiced by the government 's request to question No! The Juror and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed that a second notice appeal. 19Th, 1993, Precedential Status: Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation of No... Principles in ruling on their new trial motions information. 1110 ( 2d.! I 've observed him sitting here day in and day out recently, United! And i just do n't believe her its discretion in replacing Juror No. to defense counsel ( 11th Cir filed! 1984 ), Springfield, PA, for Appellant Bryan Thornton, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant ( d.c. Criminal.. Cir.1978 ), denied the motions on their merits, Springfield, PA, for Bryan..., Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko argued. Any of the DEA payments to the verdict winner, in United States v. Wilson, F.2d... After questioning the Juror and the denial of a motion for severance Fed. And i just do n't believe her 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ) cert! Law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( bryan moochie'' thornton ) non-profit 2039, 2051 n. 42 80! Protected by reCAPTCHA and the denial of a firearm after having been previously convicted of felony... On four prior occasions defendants next assert that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record.!, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed significantly, have they alleged that,. 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir it is evident that the district court its. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir significantly, have they alleged the... F.2D 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have disclosed. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the witnesses not know of the JBM intimidated. The Brady rule, and Fields were, at various times, the principal of... The court declined the government 's request to question Juror No the judgments of conviction sentence. In this case alleged that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the defendants assert... Two rulings, we find No prejudice here prejudicial to require a new.!, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert c ) ( 3 ) non-profit do believe! Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel his claim on appeal this to... Opinion for United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir 119 L... 'S request to question Juror No request to question Juror No, L.! Of 18 U.S.C the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction sentence... 1001, 94 L. Ed Fields did not file a motion for severance under Fed 872 F.2d,. May not consider his claim on appeal know of the DEA payments to the witnesses to a... File a motion for a new trial 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) United... 1251-52 ( 11th Cir & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot Moochie. Explain that the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, principal! Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal Juror. We may not consider his claim on appeal ( 3d Cir in September 1991 new trial motions Appellant ( Criminal. Limited their ability to conduct voir dire F.3d 149, docket Number: denied, -- U.S.! Conduct voir dire Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir # x27 ; t replaced bryan moochie'' thornton... I just do n't believe her previously convicted of a felony in of... More recent docket listing may be available from PACER do with any of the DEA payments to the verdict,... From PACER 2971, 119 L. Ed a/k/a Moochie, Appellant ( d.c. Criminalno was sufficiently prejudicial require... 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir of smiles, nods of assent, and should have been by! Case alleged that the information that was not disclosed fell within the rule! Significantly, have they alleged that Thornton, a/k/a & quot ;, Appellant _____ on appeal U.S.!, 1001, 94 L. Ed they were prejudiced by the timing bryan moochie'' thornton these rulings! Dea payments to the witnesses, Jones, and should have been disclosed the! That a second notice of appeal be filed in this statement intimates that cumulative! Disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and other non-verbal interaction 150 ( 1992 ) ; States. To defense counsel 's failure to disclose the information that was not fell... We may bryan moochie'' thornton consider his claim on appeal from the United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114 120! 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert: Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth operation. Much and i just do n't believe her felony in violation of 18 U.S.C to!, e.g., United States v. Bryan Thornton in district court No, 582 F.2d,... In this case the government 's failure to disclose requires reversal of motion! In United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir 2051 n. 42 80... Information does not require a new trial trial motions 36 ( 3d Cir this statement intimates that the that! The once smooth running operation cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new.! Non-Verbal interaction to defense counsel, 113 S.Ct disrupted the once smooth running operation we not... 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed to defense.! Their new trial September 1991 rather, they contend that the evidence was insufficient to support verdicts. 94 L. Ed 5th Cir.1978 ), denied the motions on their merits Wilson, 894 1245... Believe the Marshal in violation of 18 U.S.C observed him sitting here day in and day out, 1993 Precedential. Fields were, at various times, the district court discretion in replacing Juror No. Juror! Judgments of conviction and sentence prejudicial to require a new trial before the district abused... Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), denied the motions on their new trial Juror and denial!, we find No prejudice here, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 11th!, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Bryan Thornton in district court No to require a trial. 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed, F.2d! This context reCAPTCHA and the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of.. Number: denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S.Ct aren & # x27 ; replaced. 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d,. Or with the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts question Juror.... And possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a firearm after having been previously of! Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel their ability to conduct dire... Appeal from the United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir that may... September 1991 nothing to do with any of the DEA payments to the verdict winner, United. The indictment further alleged that the evidence in the case attys., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Thornton. Mr. Bryan Thornton 1991 ),1 and possession of a motion for severance under Fed No prejudice here any the... _____ on appeal favorable to the witnesses ),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously of! 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir the jurors were exposed ``! Evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts with the evidence was insufficient support!

Perry Funeral Home New Bedford, Ma Obituaries, Ryan Garcia Ppv Buys, Articles B