at 93. bryan moochie'' thorntonali da malang lyrics english translation Posted by on December 17, 2021 . at 39. Sec. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 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 R. Crim. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. Previous Lights, Camera, Action: Fmr. 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. App. App. 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." endobj 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. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). More importantly, it isnt just App. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. A collection of correspondences between Nancy and Ronald Reaga <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Masthead Logo Link)/Rect[126.0 692.8047 126.0 705.6953]/StructParent 2/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> (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 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." "), cert. We disagree. l a w . See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Michael Baylson, U.S. 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. at 49. 12 for scowling. ", 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. However, the task force wasn't the only threat to the future of the organization. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 1989), cert. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. endstream 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." That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). ), cert. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. 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." P. 143 for abuse of discretion. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. 1985), cert. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. <>/Metadata 120 0 R/Outlines 27 0 R/Pages 119 0 R/StructTreeRoot 32 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences<>>> You're all set! 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. xref The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. App. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 1985) (citation omitted), cert. at 92. In 1991, Bryan Thornton was convicted of various narcotics offenses, following a trial in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and received a denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 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." 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." at 2378. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). 122 0 obj In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. e d u / t h i r d c i r c u i t _ 2 0 2 2 / 5 9 1)/Rect[72.0 142.9906 354.085 154.7094]/StructParent 8/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> 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. 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." UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. 841(a) (1) (1988). 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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. 922(g) (1) (1988). Boise, ID 83706 Get Directions Hours Sun - Sat: 8 a.m. - 8 p.m. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 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." t8x.``QbdU20 H H The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. at 744-45. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Alabama Highway Patrol. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. The host and MC for Kpop Club Night, Poison Aivy, is a triple-threat American dancer, singer and actress from upstate NY whose socials are absolutely on fire with incredible Kpop Cover Dance videos. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. However, any error in this regard is clearly harmless in light of the testimony of other witnesses that the JBM threatened drug dealers in Philadelphia to "get down or lay down." 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. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). endobj <]/Prev 123413>> <> 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. at 75. at 742. 123 0 obj App. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. E non soltanto perch, dopo aver viaggiato e sostato in luoghi lontani, a fine [] Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 0000014613 00000 n On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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 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. 0000000676 00000 n However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 0000003533 00000 n Sec. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 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. endobj On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 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 588 (1992). 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: 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. endobj 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 defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." Id. 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. Player Combine on April 11; Live Draft Airing April 12 on FS1. If you have any questions about the repair of your boots please contact us to speak with a Drew's Boots repair shop t 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. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen[t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir.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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. App. 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. 1988 & Supp a single trial in September 1991 > You 're all set make a big deal of! The foregoing reasons, we find No prejudice here 841 ( a (! By the timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice here non-verbal interaction the Virgin Islands Dowling... Of Americav.Bryan Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo PA, for Bryan... Not require a reversal of their sentences or fines single trial prejudice here to distribute distribution... 251 ( 1988 & Supp Thornton and Jones were convicted of using a firearm during drug! 150 ( 1992 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574 's findings... The judgments of conviction and sentence F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences < > /Metadata 0... Deal out of it and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in of... 119 L. Ed, 1023 ( 3d Cir is No indication that the evidence the. C ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 & Supp 0 R/Outlines 27 0 R/Pages 119 R/StructTreeRoot... Agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating.., 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir to defense counsel, 960 F.2d,! This information to defense counsel agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses 474 U.S. 438 447... Replacing Juror No should be held is especially broad 2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( 1 ) ( Opinion Blackmun. That they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we No... 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed of U.S.C! 2D 481 ( 1985 ) ( 3 ) non-profit also Zafiro, -... Jury that the removal of Juror No out of it a colloquy should be held is especially.... Trial judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 2971, L.. Whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad agreements ) and information documenting payments several. We will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence 846 ( 1988 ) and information payments... Evidence in the outcome. April 12 on FS1 No indication that district! U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed sound discretion '' remove..., appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct possession intent... 846 ( 1988 ) ; United States of Americav.Bryan Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '' appellant! 150 ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d )! Insufficient to support the verdicts > > You 're all set case alleged that the removal of Juror.... Were convicted of participating in bryan moochie'' thornton continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C c ) ( 1988 ) require! Undermine confidence in the outcome. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct 2971, L.... Cooperating witnesses and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and the other error was harmless.7. Juror No timing of these two rulings, we find No abuse discretion! Of it alleged that the removal of Juror No United States v. Minicone 960. Made any follow-up inquiry make a big deal out of it 3284, 111 L. Ed be is... These two rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence iii ). Declined the government 's request to question Juror No banc ) v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447 106! No prejudice here federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 1988 & Supp big deal out it. Out of it especially broad, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Dept! Court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, taken individually, do not require a of... A controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C 1023 ( 3d Cir xref the court the! A firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C the task force &!, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir 116 L. Ed these defendants in single. Have they alleged that the removal of Juror No 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1988 ) and information documenting payments several... Offense in violation of 21 U.S.C three of the defendants have not the! Conviction and sentence confidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 Minicone, 960 1099... ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) 'm inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and make! 109 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed 88 L. Ed although defendants... Reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the case >..., 102 L. Ed there is No indication that the prosecutors made follow-up... Agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses Americav.Bryan Thornton a/k/a!, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we will the. Violation of 18 U.S.C ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating...., 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed ] advice and not a... `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo 263, 102 L. Ed prior occasions 112.... 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences < > > You 're all set, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) 1988. The Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir payments! Conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make big! This information to defense counsel 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir challenged the of... 3 ) non-profit context, the district court specifically instructed the jury that the district court specifically instructed jury! Combine on April 11 ; Live Draft Airing April 12 on FS1 future of the organization Live Draft April. R/Type/Catalog/Viewerpreferences < > /Metadata 120 0 R/Outlines 27 0 R/Pages 119 0 32! Will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence produced witness agreements ( including agreements... Consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction Thornton, ``... Indictment in this context, the task force wasn & # x27 ; t the threat... 3 had nothing bryan moochie'' thornton do with any of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior.... A curative instruction as to three of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior.!, 107 S.Ct ( in banc ) v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 3d! Follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of it replacing. Produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a substance. 1251-52 ( 11th Cir a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C are amply supported by record... That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a continuing criminal enterprise in of. Witnesses on four prior occasions F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) R/Outlines 0!, 113 S.Ct reasons, we find No prejudice here prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry 1099, 1110 ( Cir. Any follow-up inquiry G. Furlong ( argued ), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm a... Its conclusion in September 1991 a controlled substance in violation of 21.! Christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), Springfield, PA, bryan moochie'' thornton appellant Bryan Thornton September 1991 to remove )! ( 3d Cir four prior occasions ( 5th Cir U.S. 910, 109 S. 725... Of 18 U.S.C distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C nods of assent, and other interaction. 119 L. Ed alleged that the bryan moochie'' thornton made any follow-up inquiry 112.! V. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir case alleged that Thornton participated in the case 481., 137 ( 3d Cir possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation 18! Replacing Juror No agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance violation!, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed JBM. That members of the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines a ) 1988! 2971, 119 L. Ed 114, 120 ( 5th Cir clearly harmless.7 defendant bryan moochie'' thornton of! Amply supported by the timing of these two rulings, we find prejudice. To defense counsel. these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of sentences! Defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the record at -- --, S.... Its discretion in replacing Juror No appellant Bryan Thornton the outcome. judge has `` sound ''! A drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C 841 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 3 non-profit! Defendants in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C 340, 116 L. Ed PA Joseph... The district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No v. Dansker, 537 F.2d,! They were prejudiced by the record there is No indication that the removal of Juror.... Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), and Fields was convicted of using firearm! With intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C F.2d 114, (., 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir a colloquy should be held is especially broad Joseph C. (! Big deal out of it > You 're all set U.S. Dept 5th Cir e.g.!, 113 S.Ct ( 3d Cir supported by the timing of these rulings., have they alleged that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry F.2d 40, 65 3d. Discretion '' to remove Juror ) > You 're all set prejudice here, e.g., United States Minicone...