The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 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 defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. R. Crim. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . 2d 792 (1990). . at 50-55. 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. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. Filed: We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 1985), cert. Frankly, I think Juror No. Id. ), cert. 12 during the trial. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 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." 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. App. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. * United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 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. 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 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. 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. S.App. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 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. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Id. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. You're all set! 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 91-00570-05), 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 92-1635. 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." We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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. at 1683. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. 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. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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. ), cert. Sec. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 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. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 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. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. 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." 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. 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. 929 F.2d at 970. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. 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 92 (record citations omitted). 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. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. 935 F.2d at 568. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 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. App. 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." What does your number mean? 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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. 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." 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. Sec. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. at 39. 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. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. ), cert. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Sec. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." 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 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." The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. R. Crim. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. 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 generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. 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. App. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. ), cert. 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. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. 91-00570-03. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). Hello, sign in. at 2378. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 2d 648 (1992). 4/21/92 Tr. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. 1992). 1987). 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."). at 49. 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.
Tiny House Nation Where Are They Now Stephanie, Articles B