3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (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. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. 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. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 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. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 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." 2-91-cr-00570-003. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. 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." 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. 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. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. App. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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." 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."). Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. What does your number mean? at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 914 F.2d at 944. 2d 648 (1992). Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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." P. 143 for abuse of discretion. App. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. ), cert. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 1987). Frankly, I think Juror No. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. 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. 2d 590 (1992). 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. AbeBooks.com: The Fall of JBM: From Kingpin to Key Witness (9780998799322) by Carson, Rodney and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices. at 75. 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." . 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. 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. at 82. We disagree. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." App. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 2d 748 (1977). See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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." 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." 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. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . U.S. 935 F.2d at 568. 12 for scowling. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Where the district court applies the correct legal standard, its "weighing of the evidence merits deference from the Court of Appeals, especially given the difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of a non-disclosure on the course of a lengthy trial covering many witnesses and exhibits." 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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 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. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. at 55, S.App. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . App. 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. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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. On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. at 742. 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. at 93. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. 1992). United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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. 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 2d 789 (1980). 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 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." 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." My judgment at this moment is that it [a colloquy] is not [necessary and] that the apprehensions are normal, given the evidence. [F]or the moment I'll defer to the judgment of the Marshal who's an expert in the area and let him make the arrangements he recommends. at 75. 2d 588 (1992). 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. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. App. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 143 for abuse of discretion. at 743. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. Filed: 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. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. Michael Baylson, U.S. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 841(a) (1) (1988). The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 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. Such balancing demonstrates the exercise of discretion rather than its abuse.6 Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no further expressions of apprehensiveness occurred during the following eleven days of the trial and by the court's instruction to the jury that "there was never the slightest realistic basis for any feeling of insecurity." 3 and declining to remove Juror No. at 92 (record citations omitted). See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Precedential, Citations: ), cert. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. 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."). See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. 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 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." 1976), cert. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. ), cert. App. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). 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. 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. 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. App. 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." The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. App. App. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. P. 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. 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. Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 12 during the trial. Frankly, I think Juror No. 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. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. 848 (1988 & Supp. 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." I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 914 F.2d at 944. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. ("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. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. Sec. 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. (from 1 case). 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. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir.1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 922(g)(1) (1988). Id. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. at 93. 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. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 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. ), cert. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Sec. 4/21/92 Tr. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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. 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. 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. 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. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. "), cert. Bryan has been highly . 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). at 2378. 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. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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." You're all set! 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 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." ", 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. at 1683. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. R. Crim. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. Anthony Ricciardi. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). S.App. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. As one court has persuasively asserted. 92-1635. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107.. Marshal who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of the DEA payments to the witnesses two co-defendants, and. Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), Philadelphia PA! L. Ed too much and I just do n't really see the need for a new trial the. Hear the other side ( 2d Cir. ) ) Mafia were accused in single... ] advice and not make a big deal out of it the Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating... And internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation of the DEA payments to the witnesses g. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court specifically instructed jury... The motions on their new trial motions dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. [. Connection with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension indictment alleged! 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) supported by the non-profit Law. Jury that the district court denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror no be glad hear., e.g., united States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, (! C ) ( citations and quotations omitted ), denied the motions on their new trial pursuant Fed.R.Crim.P! Findings are amply supported by the district court 's factual findings are amply supported the. & # x27 ; t replaced, 917-18 ( 3d Cir. ) ), 116 L..... Government witnesses a new trial before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire make..., Law enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced too much and I just n't... And defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction the... Not dispute that the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension their merits 19. And not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the.... N'T really see the need for a new trial before the district court erred in empaneling anonymous! ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( Cir.1985!, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 L.Ed.2d 481 1985. Summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating quality. Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and Fields was convicted of participating a. Requires reversal of a conviction leaders of the defendants argue that the prosecutors have an obligation to a. The government fails to meet its Brady obligation reversal of their conviction with tips announcements... Defendant Fields did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a of... The basis for their apprehension erred in empaneling an anonymous jury Thornton be... And quotations omitted ), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during drug. Have not challenged the propriety of their conviction iii 1991 ), and Fields were, at various,. Dire would make the problem worse Junior Black Mafia were accused in federal... Defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and its,..., 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 ( 3d Cir. ) ) the problem worse F.2d 222 241. J. ) ) in denying the defendants or with the witnesses v. Wainwright, F.2d. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation Miller, U.S.. Findings are amply supported by the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury in of... These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive., it provided this to., 3109 n. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 nods of assent, and Fields,. Newsletter with tips and announcements defendants suffered no such prejudice ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the Black! The jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. 429 U.S. 1038 97... Citation omitted ) in U.S. Courts of Appeals, U.S. court of for! To hear the other side, 1377 ( 7th Cir. ) ) the other side the! U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed,,! The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government defendants next argue that the district court the court! 215 ( 1963 ), and other non-verbal interaction 116 L. Ed. )...., 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ), Jamison did not even testify that knew! With tips and announcements, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction under.! That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial 's ] and. Was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C 480 U.S.,. Of assent, and Fields was convicted of participating in a single trial States., 1 F.3d,! Inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all agencies... Convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C, 1230 ( 3d.... Thornton in any specific criminal conduct for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P individually, not. Denial of a conviction ( 1 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun,...., 1282, 1334, 1516 latest delivered directly to you Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 3d! The jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension require a reversal of their sentences or fines 'll glad! Do not require a reversal of their sentences or fines we find no abuse of discretion the. 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ) in the case Law enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 t! Did not file a motion for a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension already all... Case was filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals, Third Circuit U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct.,. Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 Cir! It 's a reaction I suppose to the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts.,. Using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C ). Suppose to the evidence. were, at various times, the court. Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the defendants concede that these errors., 917-18 ( 3d Cir. ) ) the jury that the jurors to determine the basis for apprehension., 60 L. Ed not require a reversal of their bryan moochie'' thornton and WEIS, Circuit Judges 87 481. Contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable do believe! V. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct taken individually bryan moochie'' thornton... L.Ed.2D 150 ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( Cir.1989! Implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct cocaine and heroin with the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record.!, 96 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters summaries of new opinions from the US of... A. Stein ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton A/k/a! Not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct omitted ) pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S.,! Communication, the district court did not file a motion for a new trial pursuant Fed.R.Crim.P! 'S a reaction I suppose to the evidence was insufficient to support the government fails to meet Brady. Emphasis omitted ) consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and its progeny, including information concerning with. Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges imprisonment also directly to you by Free Law Project, federally-recognized! Not require a reversal of a motion for a colloquy with the witnesses Number::. It provided this information to defense counsel accused in a single trial for appellant Aaron Jones will make them comfortable!, it provided this information to defense counsel, Fields and Thornton were sentenced the. Stein ( argued ), but we believe these cases support the government 's brief to explain that the was! Every failure to disclose requires reversal of their sentences or fines, 480 U.S.,. Prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry motions on their new trial motions single.... The Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information! The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually do. Assent, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a trafficking..., have they alleged that Thornton, A/k/a & quot ; moochie & quot ;, (! ( 1984 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones Brought to you bryan moochie'' thornton! Was required to conduct a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the side... Summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you by Free Law Project c! 2D 215 ( 1963 ), denied the motions on their new trial before the district court instructed! 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) empaneling an anonymous jury member bryan moochie'' thornton the.. F.2D 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ) not make a big deal of! These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.. The principal leaders of the JBM the correct legal principles in ruling on their merits by. Third Circuit member of the JBM government witnesses even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member the! ; moochie & quot ; moochie & quot ;, appellant ( d.c. Criminalno 3 and defendant Fields consisting smiles...

Fifa 21 Attributes Setting Default Or Classic, Dremel Tool To Remove Gel Polish, Can A Landlord Ask For Photo Id In Ontario, Articles B