App. After these arrangements had been implemented, the district court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that " [t]he transportation arrangements which the court discussed with counsel have resulted in no further expressions of apprehension by the jurors to the deputy clerk. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). hb```b``d`a`` @1V xr+(t*\./{8wnK^ RB@P8f/ -r`IFu+M;3+d,0?a2d!ATKf`zH200 bryan moochie'' thorntonNitro Acoustic. 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. 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. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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 <>/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 . 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 2d 588 (1992). It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . at 39. 1992). 125 0 obj 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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 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. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. let america be america again figurative language; what happened to royal on graveyard carz <>stream
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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: App. 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." 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." 853 (1988). Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. at 2378. 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. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 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. 2d 395 (1979). Daphe Police Department. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. at 93. 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 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. "), cert. App. endobj at 742. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 91-00570-05). ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. Between 1956 and 1960, Corcoran played several different (but similar) characters, each bearing the nickname "Moochie". 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. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." 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." at 92. ), cert. 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). 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Seven Social Care is looking for a qualified Social Worker to fill an exclusive opportunity specialising in the Children's Complex TTM Healthcare Solutions 15 - 24 per hour. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Theater of popular music. 914 F.2d at 944. 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 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. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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." 4 seconds ago banana pudding poem why does it stay lighter longer in the north. U.S. Sec. As one court has persuasively asserted. 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 12 for scowling. Sec. Posted in satellite dish parts near me. at 92. R. Crim. xWnF}W,D?xKu mIQ0"%H\P(;h_(is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L)0A(wE. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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." 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. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 134 0 obj flossie guru gossip, gloucester rugby former players, fallen hero names, cd america de quito flashscore, endobj 841(a) (1) (1988). 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. 0000002808 00000 n
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. Phone (208) 381-6500 Fax (208) 381-6505 About Thornton E. Bryan III Biography Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. 1991). denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 143 for abuse of discretion. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. You're all set! 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." In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. Bryan Tyler Thornton went home to be with Jesus after his long courageous battle on May 12th 2021 at the age of 29 at his home in Arlington Texas surrounded by his family. endobj bryan moochie'' thornton. The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. 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. 2d 648 (1992). 0000001005 00000 n
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. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). 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. 92-1635. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 1989), cert. at 1683. 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. 841(a)(1) (1988). The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Michael Baylson, U.S. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. Kennedy was dating Neisha Witherspoon Jones' baby mama and the incarcerated Jones was not pleased. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Fairhope Police Department. 1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. The district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. The 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." 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. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. At age 7, he started appearing as 'Moochie' in 1956 on "Adventures in Dairyland," a serial short that took place on a dude ranch with fellow child actor David Stollery who played 'Marty.' David Stollery said, "Moochie - an adorable, talkative kid who was always getting into jams - was not far removed from the real-life Corcoran. v i l l a n o v a . %PDF-1.7
%
t8x.``QbdU20 H H 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 0000000676 00000 n
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." Subscribe I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. at 55, S.App. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. ("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.