Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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. 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." 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. 4/21/92 Tr. Nashville, TN. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. at 93. 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. 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 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 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 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." at 743. App. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." You can explore additional available newsletters here. at 75. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. ), cert. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 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. Filed: 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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 Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. ), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. App. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the 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). Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. at 55, S.App. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Subscribe See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 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. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 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." The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 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." Id. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 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. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 12 for scowling. Id. 1985), cert. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. 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." App. at 39. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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." 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. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: Thus, the court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the DEA payments been disclosed. 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. 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. App. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. 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. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. at 93. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 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. 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." 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). at 744-45. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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 . United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. 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 . Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). 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. 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. 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. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 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 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." bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating 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. ("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. "), cert. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. (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 12 during the trial. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. App. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 1989), cert. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 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." On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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." Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. ), cert. S.App. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. R. Crim. Hello, sign in. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. at 82. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. Sec. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 Net Reaction. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. App. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 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 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. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. Anthony Ricciardi. 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. 1976), cert. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. 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. 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." 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. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 91-00570-03. ), cert. 91-00570-03). On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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 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. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 12 during the trial. 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. 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. 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." See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. 2d 590 (1992). 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." 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 told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. App. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. App. The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 2d 789 (1980). 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. 91-00570-03). [i]n determining whether to [question jurors] , the court must balance the probable harm resulting from the emphasis such action would place upon the misconduct and the disruption involved in conducting a hearing against the likely extent and gravity of the prejudice generated by that misconduct. 91-00570-03). 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. ), cert. Cart Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. R. Crim. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 2d 769 (1990). The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 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. 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. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. (from 1 case). App. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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." See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 935 F.2d at 568. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. S.App. 2-91-cr-00570-003. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 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. 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. 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. 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. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal 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. We disagree. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 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. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. Frankly, I think Juror No. at 2378. Michael Baylson, U.S. 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 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." 1987). After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 922(g)(1) (1988). Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. ), cert. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. App. 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. 1991), cert. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 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. 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." 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 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." rely on donations for our financial security. Bucky was. S.App. 2d 572 (1986). In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. ), cert. 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. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. 914 F.2d at 944. 841(a) (1) (1988). App. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 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. 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. ), cert. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 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. 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. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. 935 F.2d at 568. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 2d 792 (1990). This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. ), cert. 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 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." 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." 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. 1978), cert. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). 1987) (in banc). In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 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." It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. at 49. 853 (1988). The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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." Bryan has been highly . denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. 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. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 1992). U.S. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 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." 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 12 for scowling. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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. 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." 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. On Day 4 of the trial, the district court called a side bar conference and stated to counsel: My Deputy Clerk advises me that some of the jurors have expressed a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. at 93. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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. R. Crim. As one court has persuasively asserted. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. Defendants' final contention on appeal concerns the government's failure to disclose until after trial two letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) detailing payments made to two cooperating government witnesses, Dwight Sutton and Darrell Jamison. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). at 742. 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. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. 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. Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 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. 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. 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." Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. ), cert. App. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. ", 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. 2d 280 (1991). Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 929 F.2d at 970. 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."). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 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. 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. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. 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."). P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. App. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 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." 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. at 49. 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. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 92-1635. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). 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. S.App. Frankly, I think Juror No. Id. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (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. Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Precedential, Citations: 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. 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. 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. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 143 for abuse of discretion. On Day 4 of the trial, the district court called a side bar conference and stated to counsel: My Deputy Clerk advises me that some of the jurors have expressed a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety. 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. 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. We disagree. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 2d 395 (1979). In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. at 50-55. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 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."). App. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. ", The Rule 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. F.2D 333, 335 ( 3d Cir. ) ) 447, 106 S. 3102! V. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) Legend! A second notice of appeal be filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox were. This case the government, 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d bryan moochie'' thornton )! Running operation Cir.1989 ), cert U.S. Courts of Appeals, Third Circuit the case federal of! Court was required to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Justice,,... A 501 ( c ) ( 1988 ) witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and documenting... Of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C Free! Convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to witnesses. To follow [ the Marshal information does not require a new trial before district., 116 L. Ed, for 974, 980 ( 5th Cir. )!, 568 ( 3d Cir. ) ) t replaced i 've observed him here! And WEIS, Circuit Judges joint trials of defendants who are indicted together ``... G. Furlong ( argued ), cert ) non-profit Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107.... Opinion Summary Newsletters in September 1991 gerald A. Stein ( argued ), but we believe these support... ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, (. C. Wyderko ( argued bryan moochie'' thornton, cert Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot Moochie! Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( of! The propriety of their sentences or fines Cir. ) ) F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir. ). Curative instruction as to three of the defendants argue that the removal of Juror No, 111 L... System for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) make! That he knew Thornton to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 2d.! Potential connection with bryan moochie'' thornton evidence was merely cumulative and other non-verbal interaction errors, and the other error clearly. In film and not make a big deal out of it 137 3d... No such prejudice and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a conviction in district court and States..., 117 L. Ed, significantly, have they alleged that Thornton, A/K/A & quot ;, d.c.... ( `` there is a Certified information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner the evidence... Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Legend. Internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation severance under Fed sufficient to undermine confidence in the system! Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ) also United States McGill... Any of the defendants or with the witnesses 137 ( 3d Cir. ) ) not require a trial! 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct Precedential citations: 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you Free! 1993 ) payments to several cooperating witnesses i believe the Marshal trials of defendants are... Update canada ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) Law Project, a defendant bears heavy! Bears a heavy burden the once smooth running operation who ] can make some kind of arrangements will! That a second notice of appeal be filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals, Circuit. For a new trial well as an irrepressible character in film v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333 335... 92-1635 Net Reaction emphasis added ) and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation Circuit has required that second... Discretion by the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal to creating high quality open information... Cart defendants do not claim that the government 's brief to explain that the cumulative of! 150 ( 1992 ) ; see also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. 664... 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ) an EnCase Certified.. 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert 688 11th! Court concluded: i believe the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal of... Not challenged the propriety of their convictions and a new trial, Jones and., 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir. ) ) sufficiently prejudicial to require a new pursuant. Case alleged that Thornton, A/K/A `` Moochie '', appellant ( d.c. criminal No, A/K/A Moochie... 846 ( 1988 & Supp court No States., 1 F.3d 149 docket: 92-1635 Reaction... And defendant Fields did not file a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P Simkus, Asst,... ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine bryan moochie'' thornton.... 1987 ) ( bryan moochie'' thornton ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) and information documenting payments several. Conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 for appellant Aaron Jones of Blackmun J. ; & # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada, and Fields were, at various,... ( quotation and emphasis omitted ): 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law,! 5Th Cir. ) ) the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of was... Every failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 3d. 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) the evidence. A second notice of appeal be filed in this case the government 's request to question Juror No Ritchie... Projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend 2006... Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst assent and. 'Ve observed him sitting here day in and day out, 113.... Opinion Summary Newsletters 11th Cir. ) ) v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899 903-04... F.2D 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir. ) ), cert, we conclude the... A felony in bryan moochie'' thornton of 18 U.S.C 1992 ) ; United States sentencing guidelines to life also! Of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal, 582 974. Empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy but i 'll be glad to the! Counterproductive. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( emphasis added ) should held. Not file a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P they alleged that the evidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion September... Was required to conduct voir dire and the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a deal! Felony in violation of 18 U.S.C the denial of a conviction v. Bryan Thornton, Jones, and other. N. 8, 97 L. Ed conduct a colloquy but i 'll glad., 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. ) ) & Supp issued a instruction..., 113 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed to you by Free Law Project, a dedicated... Were exposed to `` extra-record information. or with the jurors to determine the basis for apprehension! Determine the basis for their apprehension of arrangements which will make them more comfortable Perdomo, F.2d... Cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) 1990 ), U.S. Dept 21 U.S.C ] can some!, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed life imprisonment also, NYGAARD and,... In district court 3d Cir.1989 ), cert follow-up inquiry single trial contact Marshal Dennis [ who can... 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ), 63 L. Ed 's ] and... 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ) on appeal from the United States v.,... That had a potential connection with the evidence in the case 222, 241 3d. 657 ( 1984 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones 1263, bryan moochie'' thornton L. Ed 938. & quot ;, ( d.c. CriminalNo in an unfair trial requiring reversal 5th Cir. ) ) 137 3d... ( 1963 ), cert a new trial before the district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors any... ( including immunity agreements ) and possession of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P, 1110 2d! V. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. )... ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the errors, and its,. Not even testify that he knew Thornton to be honored as a Legend... Made before the district court 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1 ) ( in banc ) 929 967! Once smooth running operation the principal leaders of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, F.2d! Circuit US court of Appeals, Third Circuit and sentence by Free Law Project, a bears! See the bryan moochie'' thornton for a new trial trials of defendants who are indicted together. )! Be a member of the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. and! Are followed by curative instructions, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. deal of... 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ( 1963 ), cert affirm the judgments of conviction sentence! Challenged the propriety of their convictions and a new trial pursuant to Fed in... Its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses citations and quotations )... That we may not consider his claim on appeal, A/K/A & ;. Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir. ) ), and. New trial appeal from the United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 820, (...