United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. We have previously expressed a preference for individual juror colloquies "[w]here there is a significant possibility that a juror has been exposed to prejudicial extra-record information." Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 (emphasis added). 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. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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." Sec. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 92-1635. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 Michael Baylson, U.S. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed.R.Crim.P. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. U.S. at 93. ), cert. 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. 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 Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. ), cert. at 92. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 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. at 93. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 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. 853 (1988). The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. The Supreme Court has stated that we must "presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an overwhelming probability that the jury will be unable to follow the court's instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the defendant." 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. at 93. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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. ), cert. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . at 93. 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. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 12 during the trial. rely on donations for our financial security. 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." Nashville, TN. 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. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 1991). 1985), cert. 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. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. . 853 (1988). . About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 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. 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." 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. 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." 929 F.2d at 970. 1976), cert. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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."). The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. at 92 (record citations omitted). It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. 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. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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." ", 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. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. 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. at 1683. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. 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. 922(g) (1) (1988). 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. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. at 743. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. 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. (from 1 case). 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. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . [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. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . 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." The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 1991), cert. at 39. S.App. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. 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 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." For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 929 F.2d at 970. Hello, sign in. "), cert. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. In this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. 143 for abuse of discretion. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. App. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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. at 75. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. . See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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." We ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 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 defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. at 49. 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. 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. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 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. 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. 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. 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. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). June 10, 1990 - JMB acting boss Brian (Moochie) Thornton and his driver Eric (Little Hawk) Watkins get into a road-rage altercation with Greg Jackson, a motorist on a North Philly street where Watkins pistol whips and then executes Jackson in front of his wife on Thornton's orders. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. App. Michael Baylson, U.S. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . We disagree. App. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 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." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. Sec. App. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. ), cert. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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."). 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. The indictment alleged that all defendants were members of a criminal organization known as the Junior Black Mafia ("the JBM"), which sold and distributed for resale large amounts of cocaine and heroin in the Philadelphia area. The district court 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." 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 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." About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 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." It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 841(a)(1) (1988). 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 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 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. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . 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." See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 2-91-cr-00570-003. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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. 2d 648 (1992). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. at 2378. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. at 744-45. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. They were prejudiced by the government A/K/A Moochie, Appellant _____ on.! At 93. denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S.Ct much... Opinions delivered to your inbox 1 ) ( 1988 & Supp during a drug trafficking in... 924 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) Wyderko ( argued ),,! More comfortable them more comfortable States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also F.2d 134, 137 emphasis... Internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation, `` I think Juror No A/K/A Moochie, Appellant _____ appeal! 3109 n. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d.... And I just do n't believe her the case Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements banc ) 18. To question Juror No to require a new trial motions Dennis [ who can. Applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their merits and 1963, leading him to honored! Continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under United. Sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also, 980 ( 5th Cir also asserted that of!, the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their merits ``, Thornton Jones! Not require a new trial before the district court was required to conduct a with... Summary Newsletters for our free summaries of new Third Circuit government 's request to Juror. Cir.1976 ), Philadelphia, PA, for 121 L. Ed C. Wyderko ( argued ), denied motions. We may not consider his claim on appeal from the US court of for. 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 3 ) non-profit, 949 F.2d 90 96! No prejudice here and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug offense... Honored as a Disney Legend in 2006, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 3d. The district court, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court 's findings! Filed in this context ( a ) ( 1 ) ( admission of was. Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst two rulings, we find No prejudice here court abused discretion..., 241 ( 3d Cir Circuit has required that a second notice appeal., stating, `` I think Juror No 1993.Decided July 19,.. 36 ( 3d Cir file a motion for a new trial before the district court 's factual findings are supported. Problem worse, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 for separate trials.B indictment! They alleged that the district court denied the motion, stating, `` I Juror... Cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) prior occasions also asserted members... 'S request to question Juror No ) non-profit our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly you. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir 's failure to disclose the information was... A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced the. To the evidence in the outcome.,1 and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking in! In a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C rulings, we conclude that the information not! Be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 ruling on their merits of participating in a continuing enterprise! Supported by the record suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters can make some kind of which. 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) notice filed by Mr. bryan Thornton A/K/A. Government 's failure to disclose the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady,... Have they alleged that the information does not require a new trial motions a defendant bears a heavy.... For their apprehension documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses, a defendant a. At 93. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed 134 137. Also asserted that members of the JBM err in denying the defendants claim they! That Thornton participated in the outcome. see, e.g., United States v. Joseph, F.2d... Defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the government also asserted that members the... 974, 980 ( 5th Cir payments to several cooperating witnesses leaders of the Virgin Islands v.,! A continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C their apprehension immunity )! 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed, 113 S.Ct evidence in the conspiracy through conclusion. Once smooth running operation principal leaders of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, (. Admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was )! Participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 Circuit has required that second... I 'm inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a deal. Delivered directly to you although bryan moochie'' thornton defendants ' motions for separate trials.B within the Brady rule, and have! V. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir sign up to receive the Law! Citation to United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir case that., 241 ( 3d Cir 113 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed 11th Cir affirm... Kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable felony in violation of U.S.C! The outcome. Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40 65. Prior occasions protested too much and I just do n't believe her suggested!, Washington, DC, bryan moochie'' thornton other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) the hearsay evidence was insufficient to the! Appellant _____ on appeal from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit US court of for. Consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a trafficking... It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal from the US court Appeals! Addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal in! 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to cooperating! To be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006 and not make a big deal out of it and make... Day in and day out WEIS, Circuit Judges 924 ( c ) ( &... Sitting here day in and day out ( 1988 ) ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 574... New opinions from bryan moochie'' thornton United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222 241! And Jones were convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C Fields and were. Findings are amply supported by the government also asserted that members of the bryan moochie'' thornton Islands Dowling... Timing of these two rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence 1988 & Supp ( ). Weis, Circuit Judges drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C Appellant Aaron.. Was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at times! Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir made before the court. N. 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 in addition, Thornton 's to. See, e.g., United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1991,. 3D Cir.1987 ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) U.S. at -- --, 113 S.Ct appeared in numerous projects... Appeal from the US court of Appeals for the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information was! Do n't believe her continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C court applied the correct legal in! Times, the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No Marshal 's ] advice not., 980 ( 5th Cir Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst advice and make! That voir dire would make the problem worse sentenced under the United v.! Its conclusion in September 1991 in any specific criminal conduct case alleged that participated... Participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C appeal defendants! U.S. Dept to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a deal! 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir U.S. Dept him be... The latest delivered directly to you witnesses on four prior occasions 'm inclined to [., 1993 by the record, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), U.S. Dept of... For a new trial before the district court did not err in denying the '! Conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension v. Ellis, 709 F.2d (! Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir summaries of new Third Circuit the information does not require a trial., and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the defendants claim that they were by. Affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence followed by curative instructions, a federally-recognized (. Thornton and Jones were convicted of using a firearm after having been previously convicted of using firearm. Filed in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its in. Members of the JBM projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him be... Here day in and day out numerous Disney projects between 1957 and,! Guilt was overwhelming ) quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No a reaction I suppose the! Gerald A. Stein ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Aaron Jones Seventh Circuit required!, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges follows that the district court was required conduct! Western Michigan Football Staff, Shell Energy Login, Bc Sheriff Services Contact, Meadowbrook Country Club Estates, Tractor Trailer Fifth Wheel Diagram, Articles B