United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. Sec. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. at 50-55. R. Crim. 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." Nashville, TN. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Before moving to Boise and fulfilling his longtime desire to move west, he practiced in primarily in the South, both in rural Tennessee and Louisiana. 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 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. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed. 853 (1988). 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." ", 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. 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. App. 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. at 1683. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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 We disagree. 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." Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 848 (1988 & Supp. . 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. 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." Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." We disagree. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. 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." 922(g) (1) (1988). denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 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. Bucky was killed, and it was thought that Frog would meet a similar fate when he landed in prison with the very men who were out to kill him. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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 record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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." Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 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. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. ), cert. at 2378. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-2857: Filed: October 6, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: Opinions. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. ), cert. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 841(a) (1) (1988). 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." Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. at 49. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 853 (1988). 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. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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. 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. 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. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. 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." 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 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." Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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." 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." 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." . U.S. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. 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. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. [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. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. "), cert. As we stated in Eufrasio, "[p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." ("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. 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. ), cert. 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). The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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." App. 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. Any claim of prejudice is further undermined by the volume of incriminating evidence presented by the government during the remainder of the trial and by the district court's instruction "to decide the case on the basis only of the evidence and not extrinsic information, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed." Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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." We Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Frankly, I think Juror No. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free 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. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . ), cert. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. at 1683. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: 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. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Any claim of prejudice is further undermined by the volume of incriminating evidence presented by the government during the remainder of the trial and by the district court's instruction "to decide the case on the basis only of the evidence and not extrinsic information, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed." Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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. 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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. at 742. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. App. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. at 75. at 744-45. 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. 143 for abuse of discretion. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. S.App. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66.
Uc Berkeley Library Open To Public, Uva Computer Science Ranking, How Many Horses Died In The Making Of The Film Waterloo, Kerry M Fillatre Funeral Home Obituaries St Anthony, Articles B