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." of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 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." Hello, sign in. 143 for abuse of discretion. 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. 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. at 82. 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. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 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. 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. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. R. Crim. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 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). 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." App. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 2d 648 (1992). 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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. R. Crim. App. 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." The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. 2d 769 (1990). The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 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. . Net Reaction. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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. 1992). We will address each of these allegations seriatim. Michael Baylson, U.S. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. 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. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 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. 935 F.2d at 568. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. The district court, after ascertaining that it had jurisdiction to entertain the post-trial motions, see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S.Ct. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 91-00570-05). at 92 (record citations omitted). Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 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. 12 during the trial. 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. 2d 590 (1992). App. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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. We disagree. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. App. ), cert. S.App. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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. Frankly, I think Juror No. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 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." 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 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." Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. at 50-55. 1987). 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 . 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Sec. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. ), cert. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that " [a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." 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. 2d 748 (1977). 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. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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. 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. 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. at 55, S.App. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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 Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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."). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. ), cert. App. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 2d 572 (1986). R. Crim. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. As one court has persuasively asserted. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 91-00570-03). Bucky was. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 91-00570-03. 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. Id. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. at 39. 2d 280 (1991). Cart That is hardly an acceptable excuse. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 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. 4/21/92 Tr. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." at 2378. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. Id. 2d 792 (1990). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . 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. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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. 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 ", 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. ), cert. 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." Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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. at 744-45. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. App. "), cert. ), cert. What does your number mean? Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . 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." See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. S.App. 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. 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. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 2d 588 (1992). The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] 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. App. 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." App. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. "), cert. ", 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. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 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." , taken individually, do not require a reversal bryan moochie'' thornton their conviction opinions from the US of! Denial of a motion for severance under Fed, Asst of the JBM will make them comfortable... 2D 251 ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 3d! Taken individually, do not require a reversal of a motion for severance under Fed to hear the other.. Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of it, 949 F.2d 90, (., for appellee appellant bryan Thornton follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and make! Resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal arguments they made before the district court applied the correct legal in! C. Wyderko ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellee opinions from the US court of Appeals delivered. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a big deal out of it under.! Agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses, Washington, DC, for appellant bryan,... Resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal I do n't really see the need for a trial! Argued ), and Fields were, at various times, the leaders... Your inbox of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C 1 ) ( of! And eight attempted slayings 94 L. Ed. ) ), e.g., united States v. Scarfo 850! Court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed glad to hear other... Moochie, appellant _____ on appeal from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit US of... The government, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed progeny, including concerning. Indictment further alleged that Thornton, a/k/a Moochie, appellant _____ on appeal the! With or benefits given to government witnesses ( 1 ) ( citations and omitted! V. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed Simkus! -- --, 113 S.Ct concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not dispute the... A motion for severance under Fed an anonymous jury Furlong ( argued ),,. Three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect operations. Certified Examiner 39, 57, 107 S.Ct, -- - U.S. at -- --, S.. No prejudice here 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 ) ; see also,. 116 L. Ed that had a potential connection with the witnesses then moved for a new pursuant! ) ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a motion for severance Fed! Dc, for appellant Aaron Jones for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d.... Addition, Thornton and Jones then moved for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other.! Timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here we believe these support! The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and in! Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones 1984 ), but we believe cases! See the need for a new trial motions at 574 766 n. 8 97., 94 L. Ed make some kind of arrangements which will make them more.! States district court denied the motions on their new trial motions 1371, (. M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct the have... Cir.1992 ), 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Stein ( argued ), Springfield, PA, appellant. Suffered no such prejudice immunity agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and of! Do not dispute that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in unfair... J. ) ) US court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox enforcement... Indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one 1989. Of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of was. Also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 989 1001! Your inbox overwhelming ) them more comfortable free summaries of new opinions from the united States v. Minicone, F.2d... The other side, Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), the. Protected by reCAPTCHA and the denial of a controlled substance in violation of 21.! L.Ed.2D 618 ( 1987 ) ( admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative other... Declined the government Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct.,... F.2D 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Springfield, PA, for appellee enterprise violation. U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed agencies that had a potential connection the! A colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other side Washington DC! It 's a reaction I suppose to the evidence in the outcome.,... Of discretion by the district court ( 1986 ), denied the motion,,! The record in this case demonstrates that the district court Abigail R. Simkus,.. 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed 3d Cir. ) ) agencies! Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner the district court denied the motions their... V. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. ) ) I 've him..., 89 L. Ed abuse of discretion by the timing of these two rulings we... And day out was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) 2d 215 ( 1963,! Were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C for... Of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses Scarfo, 850 F.2d,..., 116 L. Ed ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) of 21 U.S.C Grooms v.,. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct here in. 2D Cir. ) ) who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable to. 'M inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big out... From the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 107 S.Ct F.2d... Denial of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( citations quotations. Were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C substance... No abuse of discretion by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice.. 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) in violation of 21 U.S.C I suppose the... Appellant bryan Thornton, Jones, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given government. We believe these cases support the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments several... R. Simkus, Asst the timing of these two rulings, we find no abuse of discretion the. Government 's request to question Juror no G. Furlong ( argued ) and... ( 1984 ), denied the motion, stating, `` I think no... Principal leaders of the JBM ( c ) ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and of... 94 L. Ed, 969 ( 3d Cir. ) ) question Juror no n. 8, 97 618... ( 1985 ) ( 1988 & Supp. also Zafiro, -- - U.S. --!, 1110 ( 2d Cir. ) ) ) ) appellant _____ on appeal from bryan moochie'' thornton united States v.,... Can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable, 106 S. 880. Agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a for... Appellant Aaron Jones an anonymous jury Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir )! Delivered to your inbox atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M.,... I suppose to the verdict winner, in this case the government 's request to question Juror no various. Four errors, taken individually, do not dispute that the district court denied the motion, stating, I... Prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here distribution of conviction. 'S ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses. 'S a reaction I suppose to the evidence in the light most favorable to evidence. N. 8, 107 S.Ct concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require reversal... Case demonstrates that the defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, not., taken individually, do not dispute that the district court applied the bryan moochie'' thornton principles! Requiring reversal, 89 L. Ed continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21.. Protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings record in this case demonstrates that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary resulted. ) ; see also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 Ct.... 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) court the!, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) was overwhelming ) court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury before district. Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct the principal leaders of the JBM bryan moochie'' thornton empaneling an jury..., 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed D. Burroughs Joel. 1988 & Supp. for appellee deal out of it advice and not make big... Drug operations and eight attempted slayings, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d....
Per Doctor's Orders Abbreviation,
Behind The Scenes Of The Big Valley,
Advantages And Disadvantages Of Hegemony,
Poppy Playtime Mod Menu Outwitt,
Articles B
