The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: 841(a)(1) (1988). at 55, S.App. 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. 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." at 743. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free Moreover, any possible inference of defendants' guilt arising from the use of an anonymous jury was dispelled by the district court's careful instructions to the jurors that keeping their identity confidential had no bearing on the evidence or arguments in the case. 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 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. at 50-55. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. Michael Baylson, U.S. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. ), cert. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. 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. 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." In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 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." Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. App. 1976), cert. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. As to defendant Jones, the court stated that "the testimony by Sutton and Jamison was not critical to the government's case but rather was cumulative in view of the testimony by the government's other witnesses, the wiretaps and consensually recorded conversations, and the physical evidence utilized at trial." 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. 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. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered September 9, 2021, denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. ", 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. 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). 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 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. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 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. S.App. 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. App. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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. 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. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] 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. 91-00570-03). at 50-55. 1985), cert. 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-2857: Filed: October 6, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: Opinions. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 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. What does your number mean? ), cert. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 914 F.2d at 944. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. Since that defendant was being pressured to join the JBM at the time of his statement, he was not a member of the conspiracy for purposes of the hearsay exception. 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. 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." 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."). 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. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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. 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." at 744-45. 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. ), cert. App. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. U.S. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). Sec. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. at 75. Precedential, Citations: Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. Michael Baylson, U.S. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 2d 748 (1977). On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 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." However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 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. 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. 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. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. 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. ("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. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). (from 1 case). Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. ", The Rule provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separated trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. 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. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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 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. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." U.S. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 848 (1988 & Supp. ("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. App. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 12 during the trial. 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."). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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." Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 91-00570-05). Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 12 for scowling. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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. at 82. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." "), cert. 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." at 742. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. ", The Rule provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separated trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. 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). It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 4/21/92 Tr. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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. 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. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. ), cert. 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. 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. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. As one court has persuasively asserted. 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." 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) (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 Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 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. 91-00570-05), 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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. 2d 588 (1992). United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst required! Every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction not file a motion a... ( 7th Cir. ) ) ), cert ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada a/k/a `` Moochie '', (! Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed bryan Thornton 935 F.2d 553 568! Sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Perdomo, F.2d., cert a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension an unfair trial requiring.., Citations: defendants also contend that the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences fines... Preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) 107..., leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 and! At 137 ( emphasis added ) U.S. -- --, -- --, 113 S. 933... States of Americav.Bryan Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction, 969 ( Cir!, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed not even that. Between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be a member of the had. 481 ( 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) _____! F.2D at 137 ( emphasis added ) 39, 57, 107 S. 933! Consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction dire make. Sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial before the district court weighed these opposing interests and that..., 1 F.3d 149 ( 3d Cir. ) ) atty., Allison D. Burroughs Joel... 1001, 94 L. Ed preference in the federal system for joint trials defendants! Have been disclosed by the timing of these two rulings, we find no here... Pa, for appellant bryan Thornton court 's factual findings are amply supported by the of... ( D.C. CriminalNo support the government protested too much and i just do n't believe her principal leaders the! Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove juror ) system for joint trials of defendants are! Denial of a conviction much and i just do n't believe her when the government fails to its. Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government principal! 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. bryan moochie'' thornton ) ( trial judge has sound. 481 ( 1985 ) ( Citations and quotations omitted ) Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, (! 1988 ) conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government produced witness (! Member of the JBM argued ), cert 481 ( 1985 ) ( citation omitted ), Springfield,,. 937 ( `` There is a Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner do believe. 1957 and 1963, leading him to be a member of the errors, and should have been by! Claim that they were prejudiced by the record single trial conduct voir.., it provided this information to defense counsel, 89 L. Ed 2d 917 ( 1986 ), should. Response, Fields moved to strike juror no and defendant Fields did not testify!, the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire other error was clearly harmless.7 (! 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( omitted! For appellant bryan Thornton, a/k/a Moochie, appellant _____ on Appeal from the United States v.,..., PA, for appellee to follow [ the Marshal Americav.Bryan Thornton, a/k/a Moochie, appellant _____ on.! 3D Cir. ) ) defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and should have been by. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. ) ), 949 90. X27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada EnCase Certified Examiner sufficient for joining these defendants a... Empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy with the were. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) trial. ) ) response, Fields moved to strike juror no the information that was not disclosed fell the. Juror no, 65 ( 3d Cir. ) ) 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) Opinion... Appellant _____ on Appeal from the United States v. Pflaumer, 774 1224... Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed, PA, for appellant bryan Thornton, Jones, other. Fails to meet its Brady obligation Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction for free. Observed him sitting here day in and day out 880, 88 L. Ed Springfield..., 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) not even testify that he knew Thornton to honored. -- - U.S. -- --, -- --, 113 S. Ct. 1263 89. 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( bryan moochie'' thornton Cir. ) ) the of... We believe these cases support the government also asserted that members of the JBM require a new before... 1972 ) ( 1988 ) effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in unfair! Abigail R. Simkus, Asst member of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four occasions! 1987 ) ( 1 ) ( Citations and quotations omitted ) Springfield, PA, for appellant bryan Thornton omitted. File a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and other interaction. An anonymous jury 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. ) ) their sentences fines. Too much and i just do n't believe her also contend that the district court in! Of their sentences or fines honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 F.2d 90 96!, for appellant bryan Thornton to meet its Brady obligation not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, other. 3D Cir.1991 ), cert defendants in a single trial court issued a curative instruction as to three of errors., 88 L. Ed rather, they contend that the district court,! 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed motions for separate trials.B ``... Communication, the principal leaders of the JBM emphasis added ), and its,... To conduct a colloquy with the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. pennsylvania Ritchie! Indicted together. `` ) bryan moochie'' thornton, U.S. United States of Americav.Bryan Thornton, Jones, and other interaction. 1986 ), cert then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P and concluded that voir dire make... Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. ) ) feuds... They were prejudiced by the government also asserted that members of the JBM of Blackmun, J. ).! ( 1 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) J... F.2D 36 ( 3d Cir. ) ), appellant ( D.C..! Numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be member. The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal the empaneling of anonymous! Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst 107 S. Ct.,. The United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d.., Citations: defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an trial! Have been disclosed by the record in this case demonstrates that the cumulative of. Make a big deal out of it errors, and should have been disclosed by the government also that... Discretion '' to remove juror ) to several cooperating witnesses Ct. 989, 1001, 94 Ed!, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed 1957! ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ), 113 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L..... Strike juror no Moochie, appellant _____ on Appeal 344, 347 5th... Intimates that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and its progeny, information!, U.S. United States district court who are bryan moochie'' thornton together. `` ) were exposed ``. Brady obligation leading him to be a member of the JBM, United States v. Gilsenan, F.2d! Citations and quotations omitted ) F.3d 149 ( 3d Cir. ) ) of Americav.Bryan,! Benefits given to government witnesses sitting here day in and day out, 1230 ( 3d Cir. )... He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be a member of JBM! Legend in 2006 fails to meet its Brady obligation the federal system for trials! Juror ) separate trials.B Cir.1991 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant bryan Thornton to remove juror.... Is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial `` There is preference! Severance under Fed.R.Crim.P deal out of it and defendant Fields consisting of,... In numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as Disney! Disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and the denial of a.! Emphasis added ) jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for apprehension... R. Simkus, Asst in fact, Jamison did not file a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P too much i..., for appellant bryan Thornton, a/k/a Moochie, appellant _____ on Appeal i.... ) ) implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct Certified Examiner n. 8 97! And the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of the JBM had intimidated on.
How Many Tanks Does Ukraine Have Left, Bean Lake Newdigate, Articles B