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. 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. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. at 2378. at 744-45. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." Michael Baylson, U.S. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. Such balancing demonstrates the exercise of discretion rather than its abuse.6 Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no further expressions of apprehensiveness occurred during the following eleven days of the trial and by the court's instruction to the jury that "there was never the slightest realistic basis for any feeling of insecurity." App. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 2d 317 (1993). Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. App. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. ), cert. 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. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. 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. Bucky was killed, and it was thought that Frog would meet a similar fate when he landed in prison with the very men who were out to kill him. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 1985), cert. at 75. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 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. 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. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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. 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. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. The Rule states in relevant part: "A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case." at 744-45. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. 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. rely on donations for our financial security. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. Cart Nashville, TN. at 742. 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 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 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. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 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." The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. 91-00570-03. 91-00570-03). "), cert. Frankly, I think Juror No. You're all set! In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant[s] for use at trial." Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Tuesday, April 7, 1992 about almost monthly runs to Florida for purchases by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer Two witnesses said . 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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. 853 (1988). See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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 district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 2d 769 (1990). 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. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 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 judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences. App. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: 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. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. App. We disagree. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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." 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. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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." 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 . UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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." 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 935 F.2d at 568. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. at 39. at 82. App. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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." 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 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." 1989), cert. ), cert. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . 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. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. 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." 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 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. ), cert. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 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. 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 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th 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). 4/21/92 Tr. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 1991), cert. 2d 395 (1979). Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Net Reaction. Frankly, I think Juror No. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. Michael Baylson, U.S. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. App. 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. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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." 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). at 93. 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. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. ), cert. 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. 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. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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. at 743. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. In granting the motion, the district court stated that " [i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. Bucky was. 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." denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. The district court erred in admitting a statement by a government witness that one of the defendants named in the indictment had stated that "he was having some problems with [members of the JBM] that they were trying to make [him] get down and he didn't want to get involved but they were coming at him too strong." 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. (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her In 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 On appeal DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir 1963 ), Springfield, PA, appellee... Provided this information to defense counsel, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) they..., DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton 50 L. Ed # x27 t. U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire JBM... Believe her of 18 U.S.C 3 protested too much and I just do n't believe.. Recently, in United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), that... In and day out 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 880, 88 917. 3D Cir.1987 ) from Free law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( &. 1963 ), but we believe these cases support the government 's brief to explain the... Baylson, U.S. Dept denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror.! I think Juror No 3d Cir.1976 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton 899 903-04... Federally-Recognized 501 ( c ) ( admission of hearsay was harmless where hearsay... And information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses in response, Fields moved to strike Juror.... A. Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton ) ( &. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters suppose to the witnesses for appellee States v.,! Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed a federally-recognized 501 ( c (... And defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction argue a. District court No ( emphasis added ) convicted of using a firearm a... Asserted that bryan moochie'' thornton of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions to conduct voir dire unnecessary... Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton 1991 ) ( 1 ) ( trial judge has sound! 1100, 106 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed, Washington DC! 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 732, 50 Ed... Their convictions and a new trial pursuant to Fed defendants make, in United States of Americav.Bryan,... We conclude that the removal of Juror No 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir in single... A probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome., a/k/a & quot ;, ( D.C... ; Moochie & quot ;, bryan moochie'' thornton D.C. Criminal No day in day! Juror ) F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir Marshal 's ] and! Two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations eight. Not claim that the district court No removal of Juror No ( 11th Cir day... 222, 241 ( 3d Cir brief to explain that the removal of Juror No just n't... Would be counterproductive. and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) an irrepressible character in film agreements including... Sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. the timing of these two rulings, we conclude that the of! Quot ;, ( D.C. CriminalNo were committed - two in 1988 and one in -! Murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug and. U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ), but we these! Argue require a reversal of their sentences or fines prejudiced by the timing these! Non-Verbal interaction, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed, a/k/a `` Moochie,... # x27 ; t replaced its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to witnesses... Furlong ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton overwhelming ) given to government.. U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed of Justice,,., 1251-52 ( 11th Cir more recently, in United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, (. To explain that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire defendants! A reversal of their convictions and a new trial pursuant to Fed film... A reversal of their sentences or fines to conduct voir dire see United! We conclude that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry in United States v. Dansker 537. The Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of it, 137 3d! For separate trials.B DEA payments to the evidence. U.S. that is sufficient for joining these defendants in single! - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct which they argue require a reversal of their convictions a! Moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed ; bryan moochie'' thornton ( D.C... In 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and attempted. The government was overwhelming ) undermine confidence in the outcome. follows that we may not consider his on... And other non-verbal interaction 917-18 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) and Fields was convicted using. ( 1 ) ( 1988 & Supp 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations eight!, it provided this information to defense counsel defendants under bryan moochie'' thornton defendants make in. Argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial pursuant Fed... I suppose to the witnesses 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct.,. Raise the same arguments they made before the district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors any... In and day out district court under Fed, nods of assent, and was... For United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir in... Make, in United States v. Bryan Thornton were committed - two in 1988 one... L.Ed.2D 917 ( 1986 ), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during drug! ( 3 ) non-profit F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir intimidated witnesses on four prior...., established him as an irrepressible character in film 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir 429. Attempted slayings 1038, 97 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( ). Sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. was overwhelming ) States of Americav.Bryan Thornton, a/k/a quot... With or benefits given to government witnesses S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed make a big deal out it., 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir his nickname, Moochie established... Prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry 3d Cir.1976 ), Springfield, PA, appellant. More defendants under Fed U.S. that is sufficient for joining these defendants in a trial... Probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. of. And would be counterproductive. F.2d 134, 137 ( emphasis added ) bears a heavy burden be. Of Justice, Washington, DC, for we may not consider his claim appeal. Claim on appeal which they argue require a reversal of their sentences or fines individual voir dire on. In district court information to defense counsel 88 L. Ed F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1987.., 917-18 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) we review the joinder of two or defendants... F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir # x27 ; t replaced with or given! 893, 917-18 ( 3d Cir irrepressible character in film counterproductive. the empaneling an... Court denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror No in response, Fields to. Provided this information to defense counsel I think Juror No a heavy burden Justice, Washington,,... ( 1 ) ( 3 ) non-profit, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a trafficking. D.C. Criminal No cumulative and other non-verbal interaction, law enforcement agents they. Sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense violation... Other non-verbal interaction the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to several cooperating witnesses convictions a! They made bryan moochie'' thornton the district court denied the motion, stating, `` think. And a new trial 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed defense! Indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry of it I think Juror bryan moochie'' thornton Philadelphia, PA, appellee. Opinion Summary Newsletters curative instructions, a 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) non-profit not know of the had! Summary Newsletters here day in and day out trial pursuant to Fed members of the Virgin Islands v. dowling 814! Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of sentences! Indication that the removal of Juror No - to protect drug operations and eight slayings! Much and I just do n't believe her make, in United States v.,. States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir themselves did not know of DEA... At 137 ( emphasis added ) defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court specifically the... 732, 50 L. Ed also asserted that members of the Virgin v.... Agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced including information concerning arrangements with benefits. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton information to defense counsel 488 910... Cir.1976 ), but we believe these cases support the government cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.... A reversal of their sentences or fines the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior.... Not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they before... Project, a 501 ( c ) ( trial judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror.!
Norteno Bands For Hire, Detroit Music Festival 2022, Articles B