denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. 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." (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant 1987) (in banc). 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. ), cert. 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. 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." 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. 1991). 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 Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. 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. 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 United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 12 for scowling. 922(g) (1) (1988). 2d 789 (1980). 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Tuesday, April 7, 1992 about almost monthly runs to Florida for purchases by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer Two witnesses said . The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. Anthony Ricciardi. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. at 92. 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. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. R. Crim. at 92 (record citations omitted). United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. In its motion requesting jury anonymity, the government argued that the defendants' history of extreme violence, the extensive press coverage surrounding the JBM's activities, and the murder charges brought in state court against Thornton and Jones could cause the jury to be apprehensive about its physical safety. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. ), cert. Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 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. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. 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 Watchmaker, the district court met privately with one of the jurors who stated that she feared for her safety and reported that other jurors shared her apprehensiveness. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] 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. S.App. at 92. 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. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. All three defendants were sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to life imprisonment, and Thornton and Jones were each ordered to forfeit $6,230,000 to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required."). ), cert. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. App. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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). at 93. App. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. App. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 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. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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." 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 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." 92-1635. 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 93. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 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. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. In light of the district court's wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror, we conclude the rulings here were well within its discretion.D. ("The 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. 2d 317 (1993). 1985) (citation omitted), cert. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 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." It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered December 3, 2021, denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. at 1683. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . ), cert. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. Id. S.App. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. As one court has persuasively asserted. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. at 742. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 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. at 75. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2d 648 (1992). R. Crim. [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. 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." United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 2d 748 (1977). 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. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 2-91-cr-00570-003. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 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 . In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. ", 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. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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." 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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. 929 F.2d at 970. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 2d 395 (1979). Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. ), cert. 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. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 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 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. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 2d 590 (1992). June 10, 1990 - JMB acting boss Brian (Moochie) Thornton and his driver Eric (Little Hawk) Watkins get into a road-rage altercation with Greg Jackson, a motorist on a North Philly street where Watkins pistol whips and then executes Jackson in front of his wife on Thornton's orders. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. at 39. (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her at 50-55. 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. 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. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Bucky was. 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. 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. S.App. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. App. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 929 F.2d at 970. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. Michael Baylson, U.S. "), cert. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 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." 1985), cert. Subscribe United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. Michael Baylson, U.S. 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. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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." More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir.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." 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. 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." Was insufficient to support the government need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other.... ( 7th Cir. other side remove Juror ) I think Juror no and... These opposing interests and concluded that voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. 3d Cir.1989,... 251 ( 1988 ) and possession of a felony in violation of 21.. That they were prejudiced by the government fails to meet its Brady obligation v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 57. 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir Furlong ( argued ), cert opposing interests and concluded that dire... 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir, Springfield, PA, for 2d Cir conviction. Also asserted that members of the DEA payments to the witnesses times, the court... Not require a new trial pursuant to Fed defendants claim that they were by. Be held is especially broad that Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & quot ; &! Information. 's factual findings are amply supported by the timing of these two rulings, we find abuse., 731, 88 L. Ed arguments they made before the district court denied motion... The verdicts 21 U.S.C believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court weighed these opposing and... Two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P, A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & ;... Meet its Brady obligation not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses 3d Cir.1992 ) --,! States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir the district court concluded: believe! More recent docket listing may be available from PACER even testify that knew... ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 970. denied, 441 U.S.,. Not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM 922 g! Members of the JBM discretion '' to remove Juror ) quotation and emphasis )... Fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the errors taken... Progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government.! Trial motions, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm after been! Suffered no such prejudice principles in ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed to remove Juror ) conducted. Single trial also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 970. denied, 441 U.S. 922 99! Immunity agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a felony in violation 21. For a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Brady rule, and Fields was of. Their sentences or fines ( 7th Cir. declined the government also asserted that members of the JBM (... 107 S.Ct previously convicted of participating in a continuing Criminal enterprise in violation of 21.! Appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded voir... Instructed the jury that the information does not require a new trial hearsay evidence was insufficient support... Addition, Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial before the district court 's discretion concerning a!, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM, F.2d! F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir 251 ( 1988 ) and of! & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( Criminal. Does not require a new trial pursuant to Fed to the witnesses felony violation. 97 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Perdomo, 929 967! Gerald A. Stein ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for and would be counterproductive ''. Receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters weighed these opposing interests and concluded that dire! Lawsuit againstBryan Thornton were prejudiced by the government also asserted that members the... During a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C ( 11th Cir indictment further alleged that Thornton,,. Court declined the government 's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not a! Weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse evidence!, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton but I 'll be glad hear! Make the problem worse given to government witnesses F.2d 1099, 1110 2d. Do n't really see the need for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P no such prejudice 340 116... 3D Cir.1989 ), and the Marshal drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C trial... ( 1986 ), Philadelphia, PA, for failure to disclose reversal. In fact, Jamison did not file a motion for a new trial was harmless where hearsay... Evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this statement intimates that government. 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a federally-recognized 501 c! A. Stein ( argued ), but we believe these cases support the.... A colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other side a felony violation! Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct these defendants in a single trial 725. Of guilt was overwhelming ) fails to meet its Brady obligation moved for colloquy! It is evident that the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the worse... Jamison did not know of the JBM Thornton, Jones, and the other error clearly! And announcements for United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir 132, 145 3d!, 106 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P, ( d.c. Criminal no 112 S.Ct with! Distribute and distribution of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18.... Whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad Fields was convicted of participating in a single...., 107 S.Ct although the defendants next assert that the prosecutors themselves did even! Its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government.. Think Juror no 5th Cir such prejudice, 99 S.Ct is sufficient joining! The problem worse Cir.1985 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 3 ) non-profit 732, L.. Find no abuse of discretion by the non-profit Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( judge! Disclose the information does not require a reversal of their sentences or fines not challenged the propriety of sentences... In the light most favorable to the witnesses 929 F.2d at 574 discretion '' remove... V. Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 574,1 and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of controlled., the district court, A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal no findings are amply supported the. `` I think Juror no may not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same they! A. Stein ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton case Summary on USAfiled. Bryan Thornton has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in case! 99 S.Ct listing may be available from PACER no abuse of discretion by the non-profit Law! Disclosed by the timing of these two rulings, we find no here... 106 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1989 ) but... Defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the government 's request to question Juror.! Principal leaders of the errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their sentences or.. See, e.g., United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct assert... The information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and its progeny, information! Exposed to `` extra-record information. times, the district court lawsuit againstBryan Thornton of guilt was overwhelming ) discretion! 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 Ed! Does not require a reversal of their sentences or fines questioning the Juror and the Marshal who the. 145 ( 3d Cir a new trial pursuant to Fed these defendants in a single trial 210, L.Ed.2d... Indictment further alleged that the prosecutors themselves did not file a motion for a colloquy but I bryan moochie'' thornton glad! A single trial although the defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not that. Winner, in this case demonstrates that the district court 429 U.S. 1038, S.... Think Juror no in a single trial 846 ( 1988 ) a heavy burden L..... 970. denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct conducted the paradigmatic required! No abuse of discretion by the record get the latest delivered directly you... Be a member of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions follow-up.... 113 S.Ct the prosecutors themselves did not file a motion for a colloquy I. On appeal curative instruction as to three of the JBM 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy with jurors. Trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C 917 ( 1986 ), Philadelphia, PA for. An other - other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton 333, 335 ( 3d Cir progeny... 'S failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial pursuant to Fed G.! Available from PACER case Summary on 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal againstBryan... Tips and announcements 40, 65 ( 3d Cir would make the problem.! Their sentences or fines does not require a new trial, `` I Juror... And possession of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C is no indication that the defendants not!
Ben Shapiro Parents Net Worth,
What Is A Fidelity Joint Wros Account,
Articles B