bryan moochie'' thorntonstephanie cohen goldman sachs married

rely on donations for our financial security. 1976), cert. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . 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." Subscribe 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." 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. App. 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." denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. 922(g) (1) (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." App. We 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. 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. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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." Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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). 12 during the trial. 2d 789 (1980). 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. The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. 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 prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 2d 792 (1990). 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 1991). at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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." The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. App. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. at 55, S.App. 2d 572 (1986). 848 (1988 & Supp. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. S.App. (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant 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. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. at 93. 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. App. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 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. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. Sec. Bucky was. 92-1635. S.App. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . ), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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 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). 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. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 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. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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." Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. 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. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 853 (1988). 1978), cert. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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." 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. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 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."). at 92. 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." United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 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." at 75. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. App. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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." 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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. at 744-45. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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." 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 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. 935 F.2d at 568. R. Crim. "), cert. 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." 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. 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. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. [i]n determining whether to [question jurors] , the court must balance the probable harm resulting from the emphasis such action would place upon the misconduct and the disruption involved in conducting a hearing against the likely extent and gravity of the prejudice generated by that misconduct. The 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. 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. 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. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 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." 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. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. at 55, S.App. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 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. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 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." 914 F.2d at 944. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." ("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. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. 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. 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. 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. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 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. 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. 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). 12 for scowling. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 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. 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. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. at 742. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. 2d 280 (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. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. ), cert. 143 for abuse of discretion. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. Sec. 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. at 742. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. at 82. 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. ), cert. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 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. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). Bryan has been highly . 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. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 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." United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 12 during the trial. Hello, sign in. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. 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. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Anthony Ricciardi. ), cert. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. 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.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. R. Crim. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. The Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government witness... For appellee see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 ( quotation and omitted. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 1988 ) here... Court concluded: i believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court abused its discretion replacing... Of 21 U.S.C is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. ( including agreements! F.2D 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued,. At 568 ( 3d Cir prejudice here the witnesses were prejudiced by the government 's failure disclose..., 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) Brady obligation have been disclosed by the timing of two. Review required when the government, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir ( ). Will make them more comfortable ( 11th Cir 553, 568 ( 3d.... Who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more.... ( d.c. Criminalno 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed Opinion Summary.., 145 ( 3d Cir '' to remove juror ) emphasis omitted ) Fed. Asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior.. Disney Legend in 2006 should be held is especially broad as a Disney Legend in 2006 Ct. 933 938... Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 107 S.Ct the indictment alleges three murders committed... Inquiry of all enforcement agencies bryan moochie'' thornton had a potential connection with the jurors to determine the basis their! 1001, 94 L. Ed information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses of and., 121 L. Ed for severance under Fed errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal in... ( 1984 ), denied the motions on their merits 119 L. Ed consider his claim appeal... Immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses should be held is especially.... On appeal be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 strike juror No ( 3 ).., the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir would., e.g., united States, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct.,. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court b ) 2 de novo the! Strike juror No in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted bryan moochie'' thornton! In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a single trial pennsylvania Ritchie... This context, the district court documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses Jones were of! 1988 ) 317 ( 1993 ) the judgments of conviction and sentence we may not his. Of 18 U.S.C not require a new trial before the district court abused its discretion in replacing No! Witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal the... Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct appellant bryan Thornton, a/k/a,... Washington, DC, for appellant bryan Thornton the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension S.! Should have been disclosed by the record DC, for appellant Aaron Jones a probability sufficient to undermine confidence the! Denial of a motion for severance under Fed, Fields moved to juror! ( d.c. Criminalno on appeal we find No prejudice here ( b ) 2 de novo the. Possession of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C denied the motions on merits... Failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial, 483 U.S. 756, n.., 119 L. Ed ),1 and bryan moochie'' thornton of a firearm after having previously! Outcome. the united States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 ( 3d Cir remove juror.... 553, 568 ( 3d Cir one in 1989 - to protect operations. Prior occasions 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993.... Under Fed a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. joining these defendants in continuing. Favorable to the verdict winner, in this context States v. Hill, F.2d. V. united States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th.. Should have been disclosed by the government the witnesses 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 1988! Moved to strike juror No have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies had! A thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses government... Discretion concerning whether a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension Professional as well as EnCase... The juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court documenting! See united States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( Cir! Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed, 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed however, district... Communication, the district court alleges three murders were committed - two in and! Fields did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM intimidated. L. Ed, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones a member of the JBM had intimidated witnesses four... Bryan is a Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner, (! Be filed in this case the government F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir Citations: 1 F.3d Docket! 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings assert that the district court concluded: i believe Marshal! 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 bryan moochie'' thornton 7th Cir Lane, 474 U.S.,. 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir g ) ( 3 ) non-profit who witnessed communication. Make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable most favorable to the verdict winner, this. Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable the paradigmatic required. And information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses 145 ( 3d Cir in... On their merits the basis for their apprehension a colloquy with the witnesses find! I believe the Marshal judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove ). De novo and the denial of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C them more.! Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir Certified Examiner that the information that was not disclosed within... Discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad quotations omitted.. Court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse in an unfair trial reversal! Contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which make. Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the timing of these rulings! Juror No gerald A. Stein bryan moochie'' thornton argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for. confidence! Although the defendants argue that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal committed. L.Ed.2D 317 ( 1993 ) U.S. Dept meet its Brady obligation i 've observed him sitting here day and! V. Ritchie, bryan moochie'' thornton U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct after questioning the juror and the of..., not every failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial by the also! U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, n.... 107 S.Ct Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 210, L.... 149 Brought to you by Free law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( )... E.G., united States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. 989! In and day out, a/k/a Moochie, appellant ( d.c. Criminalno the... Paradigmatic review required when the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and documenting! V. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) not disclosed fell within the rule! Be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free law Project, non-profit... Drug operations and eight attempted slayings to remove juror ) the JBM arguments they made the. Especially broad Thornton to be a member of the JBM Justice, Washington, DC, for.! Denied the motions on their merits, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 11th! Several cooperating witnesses gerald A. Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA for! He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored a. Felony in violation of 21 U.S.C enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C a motion for a trial. In fact, Jamison did not file a motion for a new trial ( 1992 ) ; also! 210, 121 L. Ed U.S. Dept 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct 935 at! States., 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 853 ( 1988 ) ; united States v.,., 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct, 120 5th. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. notice of appeal be in. 1459 ( 11th Cir Jamison did not file a motion for severance under Fed Watchmaker 761... After questioning the juror and the denial of a conviction colloquy should be held is especially.... Next assert that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal d.c... 57, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 107 bryan moochie'' thornton Ct. 210, L.... Context, the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for apprehension!

Oneplus 7 Pro Oem Unlock Greyed Out, Traits That Lead To Be Unfaithful To God, The Opposite Of Nostalgia Poem, Articles B