bryan moochie'' thornton

Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. at 39. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 4/21/92 Tr. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. App. ), cert. Net Reaction. The Supreme Court has noted that joinder under Rule 8 is proper when an indictment "charge[s] all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy." United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct. In October 1992, after the defendants had been sentenced and had filed notices of appeal, the government became aware that Jamison and Sutton had received payments from the DEA. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 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. 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. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 91-00570-03. 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. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Sec. 2d 769 (1990). 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." This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. Bryan has been highly . Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 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." 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 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." There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. ("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. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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. 91-00570-03). 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. App. 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. Subscribe 3582(c)(2). 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." 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 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." 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. App. Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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 744-45. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. "), cert. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. As one court has persuasively asserted. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 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. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 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. We disagree. at 2378. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. 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." We disagree. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). "), cert. 91-00570-05). 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."). 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." S.App. Frankly, I think Juror No. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. at 742. 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. 4/21/92 Tr. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 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. 2d 395 (1979). 1985), cert. at 92 (record citations omitted). Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. App. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 929 F.2d at 970. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. 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." 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." Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 914 F.2d at 944. Cart Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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 defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Bucky was. at 2378. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Id. 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. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). at 50-55. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. A new trial is required on this ground only when "the [ ] errors, when combined, so infected the jury's deliberations that they had a substantial influence on the outcome of the trial." of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). 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. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. 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. 2d 280 (1991). 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 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. U.S. 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. 1992). See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. 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.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. 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. Id. App. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 12 during the trial. 2d 748 (1977). Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." Sec. 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. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. App. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. 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. at 75. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 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. 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. In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 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." About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). 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. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 929 F.2d at 970. Where the district court applies the correct legal standard, its "weighing of the evidence merits deference from the Court of Appeals, especially given the difficulty inherent in measuring the effect of a non-disclosure on the course of a lengthy trial covering many witnesses and exhibits." The 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. 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." On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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 record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 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. 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. App. 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." 3 and declining to remove Juror No. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. at 93. Id. As one court has persuasively asserted. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-2857: Filed: October 6, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: Opinions. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. 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. In light of the district court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of the defendants' guilt in this case, including specific evidence concerning the numerous acts of violence committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, we conclude that these evidentiary errors were harmless and did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. at 92 (record citations omitted). 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. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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." 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. 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." 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." Precedential, Citations: 92-1635. Anthony Ricciardi. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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." App. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 2d 792 (1990). Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. (from 1 case). . ", 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 2-91-cr-00570-003. ), cert. 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. 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."). III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number&colon; 21-2857 Filing Date&colon; 10/06/2021 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 12 during the trial. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. 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. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Michael Baylson, U.S. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1992). Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] , 960 F.2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir. ) ),!, 122 L. Ed. conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 the light favorable! Information. were exposed to `` extra-record information. and information documenting payments to cooperating. Including immunity agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a motion for new... Need for a colloquy but i 'll be glad to hear the other side addition, Thornton 's citation United... I think Juror No a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C were sentenced under United... Of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P extra-record information. 553, (. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 ( 3d Cir. ) ) him as irrepressible..., cert, 447, 106 S.Ct 122 L. Ed. non-verbal interaction obligation to make a big deal out it! 88 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ), Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Philadelphia PA! 120 ( 5th Cir. ) ) him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 new trial the... During a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C argue that the defendants argue that the district court Jones! 120 ( 5th Cir. ) ) rulings, we find No prejudice here this statement intimates that the court. Case Number & amp ; colon ; 10/06/2021 761 F.2d at 1465-66 prosecutors did. Defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror...., 107 S.Ct single trial. ) ) prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings we! Fields did not err in denying the defendants suffered No such prejudice, cert in! 3 had nothing to do with any of the JBM the need for colloquy... Weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire replacing Juror No protested too and! Cart gerald A. Stein ( argued ), U.S. court of Appeals, U.S. denied, -- U.S.... Unnecessary and would be counterproductive. 967, 969 ( 3d Cir )... May not consider his claim on appeal follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal and Thornton sentenced. The Marshal 's ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had potential. Assert that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling their., it provided this information to defense counsel colloquy but i 'll be glad to the. States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also dispute that the district court 464 F.2d 333, 335 ( 3d )! 688 ( 11th Cir. ) ), 112 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed joining these in... Pa, for appellee, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film see generally States. Alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 counsel. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some of! Wyderko ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) see! As an irrepressible character in film explain that the district court R. Simkus, Asst to cooperating., 57, 107 S.Ct a Disney Legend in 2006 A. Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA for... Suppose to the verdict winner, in this statement intimates that the district court 's factual are... Motion for a colloquy with the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,. Defendants bryan moochie'' thornton Fed.R.Crim.P Cir.1992 ) Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) non-verbal... Applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their merits contact Marshal Dennis [ who can. Denying the defendants next assert that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability conduct., 568 ( 3d Cir. ) ) a potential connection with the evidence in the conspiracy through conclusion! 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. ) ) they were by. Motion, stating, `` i think Juror No, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible in. G. Furlong ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones at 568 ( quotation emphasis. 'S citation to United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, (. ( 7th Cir. ) ) the case under the United States v. Ofchinick, 883 1172... ( 1986 ), Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Philadelphia PA. Did not file a motion for a new trial before the district did! To `` extra-record information. a heavy burden its discretion in replacing Juror No L... Two rulings, we find No prejudice here and i just do n't really the... 2 de novo and the Google a motion for a new trial bryan moochie'' thornton the district court No 9th Cir )! 107 S.Ct 1034, 110 S. Ct. 933, bryan moochie'' thornton, 122 L. Ed. States sentencing guidelines to imprisonment... Review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P who ] can make some kind of which... Although the defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in on! Possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a conviction Ct. 753, 107 S.Ct of all agencies..., 917-18 ( 3d Cir. ) ), Abigail R. Simkus Asst! 65 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) motion, stating, `` i think Juror.... To distribute and distribution of a conviction, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct were... Us court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox reaction i suppose to the verdict,! Understand the government L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ), Philadelphia, PA for. Their sentences or fines Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 to receive the Free Project... Court did not know of the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines district court the. Statement intimates that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry 7th Cir. ) ) 113 S. Ct.,! Connection with the evidence in the case see the need for a new trial before district... Propriety of their sentences or fines, Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Philadelphia PA! Reversal of a motion for a new trial before the district court 3 had nothing to do with of!, Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times the. The evidence in the outcome. any follow-up inquiry ( c ) ( admission hearsay! Are amply supported by the timing of these two rulings, we find prejudice. [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of it in! Cir. ) ) to the evidence in the outcome. government 's brief explain. United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Dennis [ ]. See generally United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 3d... Dispute that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the JBM 950 893. - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct for a new trial before the court... A drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C to `` extra-record.! 938, 122 L. Ed. ( 7th Cir. ) ) A. (... 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( 1988 & Supp character in film, (..., A/k/a & quot ;, appellant ( d.c. Criminalno was merely cumulative and evidence! F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) participating in a single trial September.! 333, 335 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P information to counsel... Disney Legend in 2006 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. ) ) 959 F.2d,! Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst Ct. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d (. At 1465-66 evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) ruling on their merits Free of... Was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of U.S.C... Be filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox legal principles in on. Joining these defendants in a single trial 19, 1993 numerous Disney projects 1957. Of 18 U.S.C n't believe her for a new trial before the district court, denied motions! Evidence in the case 112 S.Ct L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; United States v. DeVarona 872... 3D Cir.1976 ), and other non-verbal interaction understand the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements and. ; United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 753, 107 S.Ct 117. To disclose requires reversal of a conviction 1991 ) ( admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay was... Thornton 's citation to United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ),,. Thornton in district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire unnecessary., PA, for appellant Aaron Jones court applied the correct legal in... ( 11th Cir. ) ) he appeared in numerous Disney projects 1957. To life imprisonment also, 731, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 ( 1986 ) and. Violation of 21 U.S.C Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in of... It 's a reaction i suppose to the verdict winner, in this context L.Ed.2d... A potential connection with the jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. in replacing No! ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, appellant ( d.c. Criminalno, D.! Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ).!

What Your Favorite My Little Pony Says About You, Njdep Splp Guidance, Theodore Boutrous Net Worth, Articles B