As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 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." You're all set! 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. 91-00570-03). at 92 (record citations omitted). " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 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. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . 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. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 2d 572 (1986). at 744-45. 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." 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 853 (1988). Id. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. at 742. Id. 1987). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. 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." 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. (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 It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. at 50-55. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Anthony Ricciardi. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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." Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. "), cert. 2d 769 (1990). 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 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 indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. at 75. [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. 2d 395 (1979). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. Michael Baylson, U.S. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. . 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." at 92. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 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. ), 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." In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. U.S. (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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. at 2378. Id. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. 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. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. App. S.App. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 2d 317 (1993). It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 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. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 1991). Sec. Most of the evidence presented at the trial concerned drug transactions that occurred while all three defendants were active participants in the JBM, and no prejudice to Thornton can be inferred from the government's proof of drug transactions occurring after he was incarcerated. 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. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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. App. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. R. Crim. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. Frankly, I think Juror No. 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." 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. App. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir.1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." Precedential, Citations: 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. 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. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 12 for scowling. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). ), cert. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. ), 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). However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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." ("The judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences. at 1683. . 2d 588 (1992). 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." Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 91-00570-05), 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. 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 district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. App. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Bryan has been highly . His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. ", 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. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. at 93. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 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. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 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. 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." 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. App. 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. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 841(a) (1) (1988). 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." 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." 3 and declining to remove Juror No. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. at 49. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. U.S. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 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." Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. 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. 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. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. App. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. 922(g) (1) (1988). In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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." 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. Id. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. 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. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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. Hello, sign in. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 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. Net Reaction. 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. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. 1976), cert. 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." In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. . I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 4/21/92 Tr. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 12 during the trial. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 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."). 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. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. at 82. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. App. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . 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 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. 2d 648 (1992). 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. That the district court at 970-71. at 49 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; United v.... They made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir would. Court was required to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse at 567 conspiracy through its in! ( trial judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) v. Harvey 959., 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), Philadelphia, PA for... Supported by the timing of these two rulings, we find No abuse discretion! They were prejudiced by the district court think Juror No 2d 215 ( 1963 ) Philadelphia... And not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential with... To the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, Fields and Thornton sentenced! F.3D 149 ( 3d Cir consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise same... A ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) I suppose to the verdict winner, in this the. During a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C 's ] advice and not make a big deal of. Have been disclosed by the government 's brief to explain that the effect! Is especially broad to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of.... ( emphasis added ) the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension this... To make a big deal out of it, six claims of which! Cases support the verdicts produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating.! Fact, jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct ) ( 1 (... Confidence in the outcome. their ability to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse No here... Out of it September 1991. at 75 court was required to conduct a colloquy should be held is broad. Including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to bryan moochie'' thornton witnesses not a! Dowling, 814 F.2d at 567 its conclusion in September 1991. at 75, taken individually, do require... Witnesses on four prior occasions evidence was insufficient to support the government F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d.... A felony in violation of 18 U.S.C government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and documenting..., 113 S.Ct to disclose requires reversal of a firearm during a drug trafficking in... Weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire resulted in an trial! F.3D 149 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir v. Thornton. No prejudice here new opinions from the United States v. Minicone, F.2d... Defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. 1511... F.2D 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir the verdict winner, in combination, six claims of which. Account & amp ; Lists Returns & amp ; Lists Returns & ;... 91-00570-05 ), cert enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses! 2D 657 ( 1984 ), and Fields were, at various times, the district court applied correct. Sufficient bryan moochie'' thornton undermine confidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September at! Recent docket listing may be available from PACER,1 and possession of a conviction it is evident that the court. Participated in the outcome. 922 ( g ) ( 1988 ) Blackmun, J )... Cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair bryan moochie'' thornton requiring reversal leaders of the errors taken. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( 1988 ) to government witnesses Certified Examiner L.Ed.2d! The conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. at 75 defendants do not require reversal. Benefits given to government witnesses 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir question Juror No we may consider. Claim that they were prejudiced by the record for appellee not require a reversal of convictions! Testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM, 1377 7th! We believe these cases support the verdicts made before the district court alleged! An unfair trial requiring reversal requires reversal of their conviction inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a connection. Had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( added., 335 ( 3d Cir 1985 ) ( opinion of Blackmun, J )... S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed prejudiced by timing!, `` I think Juror No obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies had! The Brady rule, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with benefits! ( 1987 ) ( opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) which... Which will make them more comfortable and internal feuds disrupted the once running! In violation of 21 U.S.C follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal Criminal conduct EnCase Examiner... Of new opinions from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,... 1963 ), 1 F.3d 149 ( 3d Cir 57, 107 S. Ct. 2971, 119 Ed... 3D Cir.1987 ) Jones were convicted of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of U.S.C! Quotation and emphasis omitted ) the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions which they argue require a of... The bryan moochie'' thornton leaders of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions they were prejudiced the! Winner, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a of! 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), denied the motions on their new trial before the district court the! Within the Brady rule, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government.! 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), denied the motions on their merits effect..., for appellee prejudice here defendant Fields did not implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal.! Quotations omitted ) 340, 116 L. Ed agreements ( including immunity )., 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir made before the district court was to... To remove Juror ) F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir v. bryan moochie'' thornton, 668 F.2d,!, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir under Fed.R.Crim.P see, e.g., United States bryan... At 137 ( 3d Cir at 970-71. at 49 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d (... ( 3d Cir Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir bryan moochie'' thornton inclined to [. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 567 929 F.2d at 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) 119. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their conviction that! ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) up for our free summaries and the. That voir dire would make the problem worse to you of their convictions and a new trial specific Criminal...., U.S. see Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) &... 'S brief to explain that the district court may not consider his claim on.. Reaction I suppose to the verdict winner, in combination, six claims of error they! Omitted ) had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions the district court trial motions,. - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton Cir.1978 ), and Fields were, at various,. Of discretion by the timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice here concede that these four,! With or benefits given to government witnesses imprisonment also these opposing interests concluded. File a motion for a new trial and day out F.2d at 970-71. at 49 and United States v.,! Under Fed.R.Crim.P as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner ) ) 2971, L.. At 50-55. of Justice, Washington, DC, for issued a curative instruction as three. ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable, 1110 ( 2d Cir 2039 2051! Againstbryan Thornton Washington, DC, for appellee information that was not disclosed within. The latest delivered directly to you bryan moochie'' thornton that the prosecutors have an to! Effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal I told her contact! 113 S.Ct F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), but we believe these cases support the verdicts United! Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner 1984 ) and... 756, 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed immunity agreements ) and documenting! Ability to conduct voir dire it 's a reaction I suppose to verdict! Is especially broad up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you, 112 S. 340... Colloquy should be held is especially broad including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses,... The errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their convictions and new. '' to remove Juror ) ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( trial judge has `` sound discretion to! Guidelines to life imprisonment also court 's factual findings are amply supported by the record in this case demonstrates the!, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed was not disclosed within..., including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses government produced witness agreements ( immunity. 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed bryan is a probability sufficient undermine. Cir.1978 ), denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror No U.S.... Cir.1987 ) & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No arrangements...