R. Crim. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. 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. 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." 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. 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. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 1991), cert. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 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 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. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . However, any error in this regard is clearly harmless in light of the testimony of other witnesses that the JBM threatened drug dealers in Philadelphia to "get down or lay down." 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. What does your number mean? I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th 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." Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 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 . at 92 (record citations omitted). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 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 Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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." 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." As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." 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." 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." . Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 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. ), cert. Sec. [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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. at 744-45. S.App. Id. 12 for scowling. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (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. at 743. App. 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. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. S.App. 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. 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. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 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. 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." Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). 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." Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 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. Thus, the court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the DEA payments been disclosed. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 929 F.2d at 970. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 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. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. * 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." Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. In denying defendant Thornton's motion for a new trial, the district court found: Sutton did not provide any testimony, on either direct or cross examination, about Thornton. 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." 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. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 91-00570-03. 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. 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. 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 is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. As one court has persuasively asserted. at 742. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 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 specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. 853 (1988). App. You can explore additional available newsletters here. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. ), cert. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. at 92 (record citations omitted). 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 denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. ), cert. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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. 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. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. App. 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. We disagree. Bucky was. "), cert. ", 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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."). United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir.1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. ("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. Bryan has been highly . 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. 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. at 1683. S.App. 91-00570-05). 841(a) (1) (1988). 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. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. at 82. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 2d 789 (1980). 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. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 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. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). 2d 588 (1992). denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 1987). 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 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. 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. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. rely on donations for our financial security. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d 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. 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 defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. at 93. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. ), cert. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 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. 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." Sec. 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 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." 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. at 39. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. U.S. 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. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. at 93. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 1991). 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. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 853 (1988). 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. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. at 744-45. 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." 848 (1988 & Supp. 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. Hello, sign in. 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. 1992). denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 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." 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. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. [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. You're all set! at 50-55. ), cert. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 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. 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. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. at 75. at 742. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. App. 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." Cart UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. 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 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." R. Crim. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 2d 769 (1990). Michael Baylson, U.S. 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.
+ 48 602 120 990
biuro@modus.org.pl
Najnowsze komentarze