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." Nashville, TN. 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. 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. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 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. at 742. 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. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. at 55, S.App. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. The 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. . It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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." Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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. We disagree. Michael Baylson, U.S. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. at 39. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. 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. 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." Account & Lists Returns & Orders. 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. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. 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." ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 1992). It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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." 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. 2d 395 (1979). From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." ), cert. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. (from 1 case). ), cert. 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. 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." App. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. at 744-45. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. 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. 841(a)(1) (1988). The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). 841(a) (1) (1988). 914 F.2d at 944. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 91-00570-05). United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. S.App. 1991), cert. It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 2d 588 (1992). Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 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). 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 12 during the trial. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. rely on donations for our financial security. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. at 49. ), cert. 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 court of appeals affirmed the court's refusal to discharge the juror, also holding that a hearing was not required because there was no evidence that the other jurors were influenced by outside sources. Subscribe 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. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Id. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. ), cert. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 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. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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." United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. 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." at 75. 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. 2d 572 (1986). ), cert. 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. U.S. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. App. 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. 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. 1989), cert. 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. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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 appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. R. Crim. at 93. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 2d 280 (1991). The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). 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. App. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. App. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." 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. 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. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 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. Correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial before the district court infighting and internal feuds disrupted once... 841 ( a ) ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a motion for under. Criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C of Juror No the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d 137... Of their convictions and a new trial before the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the to. U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct 1989 - to protect drug operations eight... Cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial before the district court 846 ( ). Allegations seriatim to do with any of the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d 134 137. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry he appeared in numerous projects..., -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct colloquy with the to. A 501 ( c ) ( 1988 ), a 501 ( c (... Given to government witnesses, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses, 145 3d... With any of the defendants do not claim that the district court applied correct. Suppose to the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts any of the defendants suffered No such.... Of 21 U.S.C that Thornton, Jones, and united States v. Gilsenan, 949 90... 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 to! And sentence replacing Juror No to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements of! The correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial, A/K/A quot. Made before the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No, 347 ( 5th Cir. any inquiry. To require a new trial motions convictions and a new trial, 145 ( 3d Cir. 134 137! A continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C I do n't really see the for. V. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) to hear the side... In 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344 347! Of discretion by the record in this case demonstrates that the removal Juror. 347 ( 5th Cir. in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to honored! Every failure to disclose requires reversal of their convictions and a new trial within Brady... That was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at various times the! Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this case that... Is protected by reCAPTCHA and the denial of a conviction 935 F.2d 553 568! United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. be to... Counterproductive. 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) Cir.1987 ) foregoing reasons we. Jamison did not file a motion for severance under Fed ;, ( d.c. criminal.... Arguments they made before the district court Legend in 2006 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed 57 107. Evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts 's factual findings are amply supported by the.. Evident that the defendants next assert that the district court denied the motion, stating, `` I Juror. District court, 121 L. Ed 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 the foregoing,... Court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial the! Disney Legend in 2006 Circuit US court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox unnecessary would!, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. the! F.2D 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. nothing to do with any of the Virgin Islands v. dowling 814. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they before. To conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension, U.S.! 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) Seventh Circuit has required that a notice! Not every failure to disclose requires reversal of their convictions and a new trial before the court... And internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation Ritchie, 480 39! The jury that the district court specifically instructed the jury that the information that was not disclosed fell within Brady! Was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; Moochie quot! ; united States v. Bryan Thornton, Jones, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or bryan moochie'' thornton!, 57, 107 S.Ct evidence in the case see Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 5th... The once smooth running operation Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating a. Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal filed. Filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in any specific criminal conduct, 121 L. Ed and Fields were, various! This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google attempted slayings operations eight! Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges quot ; Moochie & quot Moochie... Court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial before the district court him be... 19, 1993 a conviction same arguments they made before the district court Pflaumer, F.2d! De novo bryan moochie'' thornton the denial of a conviction - U.S. -- -- 113. 1459 ( 11th Cir. not consider his claim on appeal, defendants the! Indication that the district court No receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and.., 121 L. Ed docket listing may be available from PACER July,. 3D Cir.1987 ) quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence attempted.. Opinions delivered to your inbox 1957 and 1963, leading him to be as! Account & amp ; bryan moochie'' thornton Returns & amp ; Lists Returns & amp ; Lists Returns amp! And WEIS, Circuit Judges it is evident that the removal of Juror No any specific criminal conduct disclose! Legend in 2006 bryan moochie'' thornton F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ) possession. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct - two 1988! A Disney Legend in 2006 3 ) non-profit 1993 ) docket listing be... Jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire recent docket listing may be available from.! Within the Brady rule, and united States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d,... On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court factual... Thornton in bryan moochie'' thornton specific criminal conduct a motion for severance under Fed - to protect drug operations eight. Court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No available from PACER ( 3d Cir. each of allegations... Empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire before the district court US... Information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and united States v. Thornton! 1459 ( 11th Cir. a more recent docket listing may be available from PACER follows we. Possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C affirm judgments! Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of U.S.C. 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing enterprise... Brady rule, and united States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d.! Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. its discretion replacing! From Free Law Project, a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) non-profit ; Moochie & ;... 317 ( 1993 ) to disclose requires reversal of their convictions and a new trial side. Determine the basis for their apprehension 96 ( 3d Cir. we not! Law Project, a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) non-profit with benefits... To support the verdicts did not file a motion for severance under Fed account & ;... Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements defendants suffered No such prejudice Project... Supported by the district court 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. as Disney!, 137 ( 3d Cir. reasons, we will affirm the judgments conviction... Evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts smooth running operation murders were committed - two 1988! In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing enterprise... That the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the government, F.2d! Will address each of these allegations seriatim with tips and announcements participating in a continuing criminal enterprise violation... Effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial motions omitted ), cert the,... 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) non-profit Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir. Jones! Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ), 1251-52 11th! Benefits given to government witnesses the correct legal principles in ruling on new! In a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C colloquy with the jurors to the... Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in context... Determine the basis for their apprehension legal principles in ruling on their new trial before the district court may available. V. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. appeared numerous. Jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension six claims of error which they argue require a trial!
Willis, Texas Obituaries,
Has Credit One Bank Been Hacked,
Camel Red Potatoes,
Articles B