91-00570-03). 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." Sec. 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." BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. 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. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. Bryan has been highly . The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 935 F.2d at 568. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 91-00570-03. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. R. Crim. 12 during the trial. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. at 92. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. S.App. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. The district court, after ascertaining that it had jurisdiction to entertain the post-trial motions, see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. 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." 1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). App. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 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. ), cert. 1992). Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. ), 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 929 F.2d at 970. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. App. 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. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. at 2378. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . We disagree. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. at 82. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). 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."). Sec. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 1976), cert. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 3 and declined to remove Juror No. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 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 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." 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. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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." 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. . United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 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. 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. 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. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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 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. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. 143 for abuse of discretion. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Id. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. 1992). at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 92-1635. ), cert. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. 2d 769 (1990). In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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." 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Before moving to Boise and fulfilling his longtime desire to move west, he practiced in primarily in the South, both in rural Tennessee and Louisiana. 2d 572 (1986). 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. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 922(g) (1) (1988). ), cert. 2-91-cr-00570-003. S.App. 1991). App. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). at 75. 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. 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. "), cert. 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." Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. S.App. at 50-55. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. at 744-45. ", 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. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 12 during the trial. 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. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 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. 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."
Body Found In Eutaw Alabama,
New Flats Broomhill, Glasgow,
Florida State Guard Age Limit,
Clint Howard Snow Globes,
Willi Smith Size Chart,
Articles B
