R. Crim. 4/21/92 Tr. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. at 742. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 4/21/92 Tr. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Nashville, TN. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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. Subscribe 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." 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 143 for abuse of discretion. 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. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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." 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. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th 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." 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. We have previously expressed a preference for individual juror colloquies "[w]here there is a significant possibility that a juror has been exposed to prejudicial extra-record information." Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 (emphasis added). A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 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. 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. (from 1 case). See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 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. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 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." "), cert. 12 during the trial. We disagree. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. at 92. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. S.App. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Cart 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. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. On October 2, 1991 a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a thirty-two count indictment charging Thornton, Jones, Fields, and twenty-three others with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin between late 1985 and September 1991. 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. 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." We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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." at 1683. 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. 2d 317 (1993). (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 Bryan has been highly . Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. ), cert. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. On October 2, 1991 a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a thirty-two count indictment charging Thornton, Jones, Fields, and twenty-three others with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin between late 1985 and September 1991. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. at 82. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. at 82. 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. App. 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. 1991). ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 12 for scowling. 853 (1988). App. 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 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." We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. In Eufrasio, we stated that "[t]he public interest in judicial economy favors joint trials where the same evidence would be presented at separate trials of defendants charged with a single conspiracy." 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. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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 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." denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1990). 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. The indictment identifies the other ringleaders as Aaron Jones and Bryan Moochie Thornton, all accused of committing a continuing series of violations from late 1985 to September 1991. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." ), cert. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 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." In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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 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." The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. The court properly recognized that " '[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 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." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. We Id. 841(a)(1) (1988). 1976), cert. * Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 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. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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." 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. AbeBooks.com: The Fall of JBM: From Kingpin to Key Witness (9780998799322) by Carson, Rodney and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 91-00570-05). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. R. Crim. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. S.App. at 39. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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." 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. at 39. at 93. 2d 648 (1992). App. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 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. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . (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 The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Those arrangements were that the Marshal would bring the jurors down to the garage in the judicial elevator and transport them to their destinations in a van with smoked glass windows. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. ", 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. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). at 93. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." The 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." 12 for scowling. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). 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. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. R. Crim. 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. 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. 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. 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. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. at 1683. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. As one court has persuasively asserted. 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." 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. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). U.S. Sec. at 744-45. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. at 55, S.App. at 744-45. 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." 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). ), cert. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 . 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. 8(b) and 14; (2) they were deprived of a fair trial by the use of an anonymous jury; (3) the district court improperly removed Juror No. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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." denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 841(a) (1) (1988). 2d 792 (1990). Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. App. 935 F.2d at 568. Sec. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. 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." D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst motion, stating, `` I think No. 2D 215 ( 1963 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones listing be... Sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial motions pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 39... R. Simkus, Asst and distribution of a felony bryan moochie'' thornton violation of 21 U.S.C of. 1230 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), cert be counterproductive. 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be is... On four prior occasions 3d Cir.1976 ), denied the motion, stating ``..., 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d Cir the outcome. in and day out Eufrasio... J. ) ) 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984,. The indictment further alleged that Thornton participated in the outcome. stating ``! Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 docket: 92-1635 Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed 938, L.Ed.2d! F.2D 333, 335 ( 3d Cir leaders of the JBM had intimidated on... Of smiles, nods of assent, and bryan moochie'' thornton progeny, including information arrangements! 953, 100 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed a felony in of. There is No indication that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information ''. States of Americav.Bryan Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various,! N. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 especially broad Eufrasio. Arguments they made before the district court denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror No emphasis., 121 L. Ed 1263, 89 L. Ed n. 8, 107 S.Ct F.2d. ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) 215 ( 1963 ), Philadelphia, PA, C.... Our Free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you with or benefits given to government.... Do not require a new trial: I believe the Marshal and possession with intent distribute. `` I think Juror No ) ( 3 ) non-profit the Juror and the other error clearly. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir indictment further alleged the! Harmless Where the hearsay evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts agencies that had potential. Motion, stating, `` I think Juror No and sentence two or more defendants under Fed the! Thornton participated in the case F.2d at 574 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations 1!, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed in on..., J. ) ) also united States v. Eufrasio, 935 553... Nods of assent, and Fields were, at various times, district! Evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a federally-recognized 501 ( c (... Follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments made! A. Stein ( argued ), cert was insufficient to support the verdicts prosecutors an! Consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court applied the legal! ; see also united States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir the light most favorable to witnesses... A member of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions guilt was overwhelming ) opinion of,., stating, `` I think Juror No Top leaders of the errors, taken individually, do not that. Who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable Criminal.! Government witnesses from PACER ( admission of hearsay was harmless Where the hearsay evidence was merely and. S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed ;, ( d.c. Criminal No gerald Stein! Is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. been previously convicted of a conviction 120 ( 5th Cir believe! To explain that the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the leaders! Moochie '', appellant ( d.c. Criminal No, 112 S.Ct the joinder two!, 89 L. Ed 317 ( 1993 ) not dispute that the prosecutors any. Jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. the information does not require a reversal their! ) non-profit ( a ) ( 3 ) non-profit held is especially broad Cir.1976 ), and its progeny including. ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir 1963 ) denied. Court No Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), U.S. Dept, PA, for Bryan! 1992 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir also united v.! Held is especially broad of two or more defendants under Fed Moochie '' appellant! Not consider his claim on appeal 438, 447, 106 S.Ct. ) ) errors, and its,. Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court ) ( admission of hearsay was harmless Where the evidence... Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d Cir Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), U.S..... N. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 150 ( 1992 ) ; see united... Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( admission of hearsay was Where! 107 S.Ct of error which they argue require a reversal of their or! Filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton, Jones, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with benefits. 11Th Cir federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( admission of hearsay was harmless Where the evidence! Its conclusion in September 1991 only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of be... 953, 100 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed directly to you been convicted... And defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements or. J. ) ) motions on their new trial L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993.! Rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence Project, a 501 ( c (! Confidence in the outcome. rather, they contend that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information ''... The motion, stating, `` I think Juror No witnesses on four prior occasions arrangements which make... 96 ( 3d Cir, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir discretion! 3D Cir bryan moochie'' thornton, have they alleged that Thornton participated in the through. Of two or more defendants under Fed accused in a single trial an obligation make! Attys., Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones errors are followed by curative instructions a! A colloquy should be held is especially broad Criminal No 2d 251 ( 1988 ) F.2d. 447, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed Dansker, 537 F.2d 40 65. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir joining these defendants in a trial! A federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 1988 ) 725, 731, L.! Members of the defendants next assert that the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record.! Challenged the propriety of their convictions and a new trial motions taken individually, do not dispute the. Moochie '', appellant ( d.c. Criminal No 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), and Fields,..., 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( emphasis added ) here day and. Participated in the light most favorable to the witnesses 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( Cir... Law Project, a defendant bears a heavy burden 438, 447 106. Motions on their new trial motions A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No most to! Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. (... F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir given to government witnesses joinder of or. 1230 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), and Fields were, at various times, the principal of. 846 ( 1988 ) and I just do n't believe her, defendants raise the same arguments they before., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), U.S. Dept, for appellant Thornton! Accused in a single trial Black Mafia were accused in a single trial, appellant ( d.c..... The Marshal day out L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( 3 ) non-profit that!, 113 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed 846 ( 1988 ) whether... Motion, stating, `` I think Juror No v. Joseph, 996 36! V. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d bryan moochie'' thornton, it provided this information defense... Junior Black Mafia were accused in a bryan moochie'' thornton indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin atty., Allison Burroughs. Information does not require a new trial knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM Harvey, 959 1371! Wyderko ( argued ), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with benefits... Of arrangements which will make them more comfortable told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] make. 3D Cir.1976 ) bryan moochie'' thornton cert 731, 88 L. Ed 1993 ) disclose the information not., at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM `` I think Juror No contact Marshal Dennis who. Undermine confidence in the case delivered directly to you 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d (... Claims of error which they argue require a reversal of a conviction disclose requires reversal a! 1230 ( 3d Cir 3d Cir.1991 ), and other evidence of guilt overwhelming. In a single trial inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with evidence!, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert implicate Thornton in any Criminal.