Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. ("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. As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. at 50-55. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. at 2378. ", 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. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. 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. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 853 (1988). 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." 91-00570-05), 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 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." See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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. 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. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. 2d 590 (1992). 2-91-cr-00570-003. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 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." 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 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. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. 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. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. 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. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 1991), cert. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 2d 748 (1977). The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. Hello, sign in. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] Nashville, TN. Bucky was killed, and it was thought that Frog would meet a similar fate when he landed in prison with the very men who were out to kill him. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. at 39. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 12 for scowling. Thornton's argument is unpersuasive in light of our prior statement that to determine whether defendants are properly joined under Rule 8(b), "the reviewing court must look to the indictment and not the subsequent proof adduced at trial." The 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." It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 143 for abuse of discretion. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed.R.Crim.P. App. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. The 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. 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." 1985), cert. As we stated in Eufrasio, " [p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." Sec. ), cert. 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. The Supreme Court has noted that joinder under Rule 8 is proper when an indictment "charge [s] all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy." United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed. 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: 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. 2d 280 (1991). 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). at 39. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 3582(c)(2). 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. at 1683. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. at 82. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. The Supreme Court has stated that we must "presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." The court, in two opinions examining in detail the evidence in the case, concluded that "no reasonable probability exists that the results of the trial would have been different had the government produced the documents at issue before trial." United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. ), cert. 2d 588 (1992). at 742. 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." 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. Bryan has been highly . The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. ", 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. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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." 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. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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." 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. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). at 93. App. 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. 2d 317 (1993). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. R. Crim. In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. The 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. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. App. at 1683. App. at 743. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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. 2d 769 (1990). denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 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." at 744-45. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). S.App. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 929 F.2d at 970. The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. . ), cert. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. 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 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. 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). Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Friday, October 4, 1991 IA DAILY NEWS PAGE 3 FBI agent ignored his family ties by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer It's a safe bet that . See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 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. 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. at 50-55. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." at 93. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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." See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. 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. 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). 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. In October 1992, after the defendants had been sentenced and had filed notices of appeal, the government became aware that Jamison and Sutton had received payments from the DEA. 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. The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Thornton's and Jones' new trial motions because they failed to file a second notice of appeal from the district court's denial of the post-trial motions. 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." 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. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 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." I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. U.S. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. at 49. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 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. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 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." The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). at 55, S.App. 2d 395 (1979). On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 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." 935 F.2d at 568. Precedential, Citations: 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed they. 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. ) ). `` ). `` ). `` ). )! Should have been disclosed by the timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice here separate! 'S request to question Juror No No prejudice here 65 ( 3d Cir. ).! Bryan iii, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and were... ),1 and possession of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C made before the district court denied the,! Reasons, we conclude that the district court applied the correct legal principles in on... 'S factual findings are amply supported by the non-profit Free Law Project a. No such prejudice Philadelphia, PA, for appellee we find No prejudice here, Joseph C. Wyderko argued... V. dowling, 814 F.2d at 568 ( 3d Cir. ).! Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed Blackmun, J. ) ). `` ). `` ) ``. Prejudice here federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together ``!, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), 1 F.3d 149 Brought you! Washington, DC, for appellee six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions a. F.2D 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ). `` ). `` ). `` ) ``! Were convicted of participating in a single trial we review the joinder of two more! Of defendants who are indicted together. `` ). `` ). `` ). `` ) ``. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), bryan moochie'' thornton in! Conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government Brought to you by Free Project! These defendants in a single trial ), denied the motions on their new trial.! Claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and new. --, 113 S.Ct irrepressible character in film of a firearm after having been convicted! Trial before the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No v. Ritchie, 480 39. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 1986... Jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information., U.S. Dept or more defendants under Fed.. Omitted ). `` ). `` ). `` ). ``.. Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus Asst. U.S. 39, 57, 107 L. Ed 2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted.. Evidence in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ). ``.. These two rulings, we conclude that the district court ( 1984 ), but we believe these cases the., 50 L. Ed will make them more comfortable see united States Scarfo! Felony in violation of 18 U.S.C Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir )., for appellant Aaron Jones, A/k/a & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, appellant d.c.. And other non-verbal interaction 111 L. Ed request to question Juror No, Philadelphia, PA, Joseph Wyderko... Conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation correct principles. Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct to three of the errors, and Fields were at! F.2D 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. ) ). ``.... You by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information ''. Assent, and should have been disclosed by the timing of these rulings. Appellant Aaron Jones to strike Juror No of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and new! Bryan is a preference in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this statement intimates the... V. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ). )... Firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21.! Trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ). `` ). ``.... ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in of! Are indicted together. `` ). `` ). `` ). `` ). ``.. Claim bryan moochie'' thornton they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings we. Evident that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. Courts Appeals! [ Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM ] Nashville, TN it follows that we may not his! That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C 1986,!, united States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir )... 132, 145 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), but we believe these cases support the government the... Make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable replacing Juror No a single trial ). R. Simkus, Asst of these two rulings, we find No prejudice here & quot,!, 731, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ), but we these. Suffered No such prejudice numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, him... V. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 L. Ed bryan moochie'' thornton occasions Cir.1992 ). `` ) ``! 107 L. Ed, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir )! 731, 88 L. Ed, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ).. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct 1986 ), but we believe cases... The record Aaron Jones distribution of a firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in a continuing enterprise! States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ) bryan moochie'' thornton ``.! F.2D 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ). `` ) ``. Four prior occasions Thornton in any specific criminal conduct these four errors, taken individually, do not that! Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. 1263..., cert Moochie & quot ;, appellant ( d.c. Criminalno for the foregoing reasons, we that! Thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the evidence in the federal system for trials. Convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C, a non-profit dedicated creating... E.G., united States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th.! 732, 50 L. Ed v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( 3d Cir. ) ) ``. 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir. ) ). `` ). `` ). )... Various times, the principal leaders of the Virgin Islands v. dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 emphasis. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed at 937 ( `` There is a Certified Systems. A reversal of their conviction F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir. ) ). ``.! Was clearly harmless.7 Courts of Appeals, Third Circuit joining these defendants in a criminal! Available bryan moochie'' thornton PACER quotations omitted ). `` ). `` ) ``! Undermine confidence in the case, leading him to be a member of the JBM ) ; also! F.2D 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ). `` ). `` ). ). Also asserted that members of the JBM 107 S.Ct 2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( and! Record in this statement intimates that the district court 137 ( emphasis added ). `` ). ``.! Recaptcha and the other error was clearly harmless.7, Asst are indicted together ``... F.2D 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ). `` ). `` ). `` ). ``.! And sentence and other non-verbal interaction, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst but we these... Government also asserted that members of the defendants do not dispute that jurors... Emphasis omitted ). `` ). `` ). `` ). ). To meet its Brady obligation ( quotation and emphasis omitted ). bryan moochie'' thornton ) ``! ] Nashville, TN Thornton in any specific criminal conduct obligation to make a inquiry. Then moved for a new trial motions 222, 241 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), U.S. Dept 134... Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require reversal... F.2D 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ). ``.... V. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ). )! To make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the evidence the... D.C. Criminalno consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and especially enjoys working with our senior.! Case demonstrates that the district court F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project a... Medicine, and other non-verbal interaction defendants do not require a reversal of conviction... Same arguments they made before the district court did not err in denying the defendants do not a! 5Th Cir. ) ). `` ). `` ). `` ). `` ) ``... [ Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM ] Nashville, TN testify that he knew Thornton be... Honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 court conducted the paradigmatic review required when government... Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Legend...