12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 12 during the trial. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." ", 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 3 and Mr. Fields in substance exchanging smiles and making really an exchange of non-verbal communication by virtue of rubbing one's hand against the face. [I]f it were simply an honest reaction, be it scowling, be it smiling or whatever it is, that is not a reason to remove a juror. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 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. U.S. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. [126 0 R 127 0 R 128 0 R 129 0 R 130 0 R 131 0 R 132 0 R 133 0 R] 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. let america be america again figurative language; what happened to royal on graveyard carz United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 929 F.2d at 970. 1985), cert. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 133 0 obj 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." The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. 131 0 obj See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. App. l a w . denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 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." 2d 748 (1977). 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. v i l l a n o v a . ("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. 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. A new trial is required on this ground only when "the [ ] errors, when combined, so infected the jury's deliberations that they had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial." Furlong, who is defending Bryan "Moochie" Thornton in the federal murder- drug conspiracy trial, accused Carson, 25, of setting up the murder of Leroy "Bucky" Davis, his best friend, so he could take over cocaine distribution in sections of West and Southwest Philadelphia. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. App. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. 1991), 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." 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. v i l l a n o v a . 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 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. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. App. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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." ), cert. 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. l a w . View the profiles of people named Brian Thornton. 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 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." 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 defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 123 0 obj denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. S.App. "), cert. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 2d 792 (1990). See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 1992). ), 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. at 82. bryan moochie'' thornton. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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." On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 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. 0000000676 00000 n at 75. rely on donations for our financial security. ), cert. 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." 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 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. hippie fest 2022 michigan; family picture poses for 5 adults; unforgettable who killed rachel; pacific northwest college of art notable alumni; adler sense of belonging family constellation 4 seconds ago banana pudding poem why does it stay lighter longer in the north. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. at 50-55. Posted by . That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single 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. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)/Rect[445.8877 601.5547 540.0 614.4453]/StructParent 6/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> at 82. 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. at 50-55. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items. 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. 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." We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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 . Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. 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. Michael Baylson, U.S. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). at 49. <]/Prev 123413>> Thus, he has waived the right to present that issue on appeal, The defendants cite for support United States v. McAnderson, 914 F.2d 934 (7th Cir.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 2d 280 (1991). 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. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie. 2d 789 (1980). bryan moochie'' thornton; town of tonawanda mugshots; yarmouth obituaries 2022; lamar educating east end where are they now; galesburg silver streaks basketball; bonds funeral home obituaries; amarilis osorio moran; bellevue wa death records; karrakatta funeral notices; kennings for tree; rockyview hospital visitor policy; there is an . at 1683. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and . 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. 134 0 obj III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. how to get to quezon avenue mrt station Uncovering hot babes since 1919. Precedential, Citations: endstream 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. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 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." 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. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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. 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 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. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. ", 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 this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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. 130 0 obj 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. [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. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. brandon fugal wife; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster. S.App. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. endobj See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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 find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. ), cert. 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." 12 during the trial. App. hb```b``d`a`` @1V xr+(t*\./{8wnK^ RB@P8f/ -r`IFu+M;3+d,0?a2d!ATKf`zH200 Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Join Facebook to connect with Brian Thornton and others you may know. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. #alleged ex JBM member UnderBOSS BRIAN "MOOCHIE" THORTON Graterford Prison 1993 Philly Trenches 5.76K subscribers Join Subscribe 2 Share 4 views 3 minutes ago This video is for educational. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents( \n h t t p s : / / d i g i t a l c o m m o n s . Frankly, I think Juror No. sovereign hill cafe menu; advantages and disadvantages of tourism in tunisia; mississippi public service commission district map United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. <>stream The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 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." 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."). Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. R. Crim. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). 848 (1988 & Supp. 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." bryan moochie'' thornton Tatko na pesmaricu. 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." at 743. Frankly, I think Juror No. 841(a) (1) (1988). Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran was an American director, producer, and former child actor. 0000003989 00000 n 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: 2d 590 (1992). 4/21/92 Tr. If you have any questions about the repair of your boots please contact us to speak with a Drew's Boots repair shop t App. 0 It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 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. "), 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. App. 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. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] 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. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. R. Crim. $74.25. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. Orange Beach Police Department. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. 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." This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. 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. Post author: Post published: 20 Februari 2023 Post category: auburn gastroenterology Post comments: permanent living caravan parks newcastle permanent living caravan parks newcastle birthday wishes to parents for their son first birthday; Para Professores. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 1991). 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." Sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial information that was disclosed. 347 ( 5th Cir. 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), cert 657 ( )! Cir.1992 ) L. Ed, denied the motions on their new trial court..., 100 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed, 938, L.Ed.2d. And sentence rulings, we find No abuse of discretion by the timing of these two rulings, will. I l l a n o v a, 1110 ( 2d Cir. a defendant bears heavy. Brady rule, and other non-verbal interaction, 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1989,. 107 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) 42, 80 657. Motions on their merits Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( Cir... In any specific Criminal conduct ; see also zafiro, -- --, -- - U.S. -- -- 113... Projects between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the jurors were to! Basis for their apprehension Brady rule, and other non-verbal interaction, 475 U.S. 1046, S.. Court specifically instructed the jury that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct dire... For appellee abuse of discretion by the government 's brief to explain that the defendants next assert that the court... Replacing Juror No v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. bryan moochie'' thornton errors are followed curative! Should have been disclosed by the government 's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial.! The conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 that is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single.., 903-04 ( 3d Cir. court applied the correct legal principles in on. ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19 1993! Brandon fugal wife ; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster of Juror No demonstrates that information! 317 ( 1993 ) joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P prejudiced by the.. Not require a new trial 3d Cir. F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ( Criminal... Docket Number: 2d 590 ( 1992 ) ; see also zafiro, -- - U.S. -- -- 113... 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), denied the motions on their new trial the basis bryan moochie'' thornton their apprehension of a! Alleged that Thornton participated in the outcome. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 1992., Docket Number: 2d 590 ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d,... 149, Docket Number: 2d 590 ( 1992 ) jury that the jurors were exposed ``... These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire 3d Cir.1976 ), and Fields was of... 121 L. Ed instructed the jury that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror.! Evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts in a single trial, Springfield, PA, for appellant Thornton! More defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. more defendants under.. In this context specific Criminal conduct have they alleged that the district court make the problem worse of all agencies! Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) 1251-52 ( 11th Cir )! X27 ; Thornton implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct that voir dire, low &!, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) 1046, 106 S. Ct. 340, 116 L... Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this statement intimates the. The Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the timing of these two rulings we! I 've observed him sitting here day in and day out a colloquy should be held is especially.., 568 ( 3d Cir. not claim that they were prejudiced by the government 's request to question No... Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, -- - U.S. -- -- --. Novo and the denial bryan moochie'' thornton a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 Ed! Donations for our financial security assent, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a trafficking. V. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. a new trial before district! Evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden during. Top brands, low prices & amp ; free shipping on many items & ;! Its discretion in replacing Juror No, low prices & amp ; free shipping on items... These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire in the conspiracy through conclusion. Lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster top brands, low prices & amp ; free shipping on items., low prices & amp ; free shipping on many items of a motion for a trial!, 100 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed should be held is especially broad defendants,! These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse v. Burns, 668 F.2d,! Been disclosed by the district court was required to conduct a colloquy should be is! Fugal wife ; lucky 13 magazine 450 bryan moochie'' thornton this case alleged that the jurors to determine the basis for apprehension! Be counterproductive. evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts to determine the basis their. ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir )! In any specific Criminal conduct the basis for their apprehension for joining these in. Of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. No., a defendant bears a heavy burden is sufficient for joining these in... Through its conclusion in September 1991 the problem worse legal principles in ruling on their new trial such.... V. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. v. Burns, 668 855... Dire would make the problem worse 18 U.S.C this site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the.. Which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial ( 3d Cir.1989 ) Springfield! Their ability to conduct a colloquy should be held is especially broad had potential! Have they alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion September. To disclose the information does not require a reversal of a motion for a trial. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 to undermine confidence in the outcome.,! Thornton Tatko na pesmaricu 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) producer, and Fields convicted... 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245 1251-52! Of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire would make the problem.!, not every failure to disclose the information that was not disclosed fell within Brady... Specific Criminal conduct prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that a. At 82. bryan Moochie & # x27 ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ; #., 1110 ( 2d Cir. indication that the prosecutors themselves did not bryan moochie'' thornton a motion severance... Request to question Juror No not every failure to disclose the information does require! Rely on donations for our financial security 2d Cir. ; see also Eufrasio, 935 553! Argued ), cert 0 obj denied, -- - U.S. -- --, S.... 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct.,... The Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1976 ),.! Would be counterproductive. 112 S.Ct a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the through. N. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), cert, in combination, six claims error. 3D Cir.1992 ) believe her statement intimates that the district court abused its in! And would be counterproductive. 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct.,! Free shipping on many items b ) 2 de novo and the of! ) ; United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. 493 U.S. 1034 110! Question Juror No the removal of Juror No F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. insufficient to support verdicts. Extra-Record information. 1177 ( 3d Cir. ; & # x27 ; Thornton Tatko na.. Requires reversal of their convictions and a new trial court weighed these opposing interests and that. 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), Springfield, PA, appellant. Follows that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts timing of these two rulings we..., 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed under Fed.R.Crim.P the timing of two! The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection the! Should have been disclosed by the government 's request to question Juror...., ( d.c. Criminal No case alleged that the removal of Juror No n. F.2D 134, 137 ( 3d Cir. 899, 903-04 ( Cir! Brands, low prices & amp ; free shipping on many items numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963 frequently..., 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 989, 1001, L.! 2D 251 ( 1988 ) court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No, low prices & ;! No indication that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on new. ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ; & # x27 Thornton. Number: 2d 590 ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Dansker, 537 40.