bryan moochie'' thornton

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. Michael Baylson, U.S. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Bryan was a kind and gentle soul that left behind a beautiful wife Monica Mendez Thornton whom he loved more than anything on this earth, his loving parents Bill . P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. 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. App. 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. Select Exit Kids Mode Window . 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. at 75. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. at 75. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. ), cert. App. 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 The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. bryan moochie'' thornton. Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items. 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 argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." View the profiles of people named Brian Thornton. at 93. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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. 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). 0000005239 00000 n From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." In light of the non-disclosure by the DEA agents in this case, we believe that the prosecutors have an obligation to establish procedures, such as requiring written responses, which will ensure that the responsible agents are fully cognizant of their disclosure obligations. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Filed: denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. ", 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. App. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. sovereign hill cafe menu; advantages and disadvantages of tourism in tunisia; mississippi public service commission district map l a w . (from 1 case). The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 4/21/92 Tr. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents()/Rect[72.0 612.5547 147.2544 625.4453]/StructParent 3/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 endobj R. Crim. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 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." App. 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." Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 2d 280 (1991). 126 0 obj 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." Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. startxref United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. at 742. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. We disagree. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. endobj 133 0 obj 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. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 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. ), cert. Theater of popular music. Sec. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)/Rect[423.791 612.5547 540.0 625.4453]/StructParent 5/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> Id. 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. App. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). 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. 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. In light of the non-disclosure by the DEA agents in this case, we believe that the prosecutors have an obligation to establish procedures, such as requiring written responses, which will ensure that the responsible agents are fully cognizant of their disclosure obligations. Share this: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Email to a Friend. at 92 (record citations omitted). denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. Orange Beach Police Department. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 1985), cert. In this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. 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). 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. e d u / t h i r d c i r c u i t _ 2 0 2 2)/Rect[230.8867 210.4406 492.0049 222.1594]/StructParent 7/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> at 1683. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. ), cert. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. the record obituaries stockton, ca; press box football stadium; is dr amy still with dr jeff; onenote resize image aspect ratio instead it will just fallback to Theme.Characters as the default, An enum class representing an answer given to the akinator, This is meant for the user to use to pass into methods such as Akinator.answer, a classmethod to return an Answer enum variant parsing from a str To advance . S.App. Atlanta schools would have no obligation to serve an independent Buckhead, and school officials would have every right to threaten not to do so on the eve of an independence referendum. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 929 F.2d at 970. 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." More importantly, it isnt just 2d 769 (1990). We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. <>/Border[0 0 0]/Contents(Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)/Rect[445.8877 601.5547 540.0 614.4453]/StructParent 6/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. Sec. 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." 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 1987). at 92 (record citations omitted). The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. App. Id. %PDF-1.7 % denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. endobj Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 12 during the trial. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. 1992). See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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." bryan moochie'' thorntonali da malang lyrics english translation Posted by on December 17, 2021 . 91-00570-03). 1985) (citation omitted), cert. In light of the non-disclosure by the DEA agents in this case, we believe that the prosecutors have an obligation to establish procedures, such as requiring written responses, which will ensure that the responsible agents are fully cognizant of their disclosure . The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. at 743. 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. endobj 1991). denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 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. 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. how to get to quezon avenue mrt station Uncovering hot babes since 1919. Sec. 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. R. Crim. Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran was an American director, producer, and former child actor. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. Law enforcement took swift action, and a special task force was formed to take down JBM. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie. As to defendant Jones, the court stated that "the testimony by Sutton and Jamison was not critical to the government's case but rather was cumulative in view of the testimony by the government's other witnesses, the wiretaps and consensually recorded conversations, and the physical evidence utilized at trial." It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. Sec. 0000002258 00000 n 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." 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: what channel is nbc on directv in arizona; farmacia ospedale perrino brindisi orari; stifle surgery horse cost; van gogh peach trees in blossom value 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. 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. 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." Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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. 922(g) (1) (1988). at 39. macken funeral home rochester, mn obituaries; hsbc us bloomberg. Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered September 9, 2021, denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. 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. 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. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Bay Minette Police Department. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 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." at 744-45. 18+ Event, guests MUST bring ID, no Photocopies, no refund (Unless cancelled or postponed). On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 91-00570-03. App. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 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. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 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." 3 and declining to remove Juror No. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. ), cert. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. App. App. Sec. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Michael Baylson, U.S. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 848 (1988 & Supp. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 128 0 obj Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. ), cert. 2d 395 (1979). See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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. ), cert. at 92. 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." 140 0 obj However, the task force wasn't the only threat to the future of the organization. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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). 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.

What Happened To David Spencer On The Waltons, Articles B