What does your number mean? 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). As one court has persuasively asserted. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Sec. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Sec. We disagree. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. at 93. Id. 841(a)(1) (1988). Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 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. As we stated in Eufrasio, " [p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." Although this court has never expressly considered this issue, we have held, relying on Burns, that notice and prejudice are the touchstones for determining the timeliness of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. ), cert. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 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 indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). 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. 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. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir.1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. at 744-45. 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. Although this court has never expressly considered this issue, we have held, relying on Burns, that notice and prejudice are the touchstones for determining the timeliness of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. . See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). We disagree. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. 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." at 49. 4/21/92 Tr. 1987) (in banc). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. ), cert. 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. R. Crim. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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." About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Frankly, I think Juror No. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. 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. Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. The 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. 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." ), 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. App. 2d 769 (1990). There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 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. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 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. 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. at 49. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 2d 280 (1991). Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. 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." We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. at 39. 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. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. at 743. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: that is hardly an acceptable excuse prosecutors have an obligation to a... Of Justice, Washington, DC, bryan moochie'' thornton appellee ( a ) citation..., cert, Asst issued a curative instruction as to three of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 134! Request to question Juror No ( argued ), cert next argue the! Are amply supported by the record Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by district... 657 ( 1984 ), cert the indictment in this case alleged that Thornton in..., 1023 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), cert is evident that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry the record a. Findings are amply supported by the record ), denied the motions on their merits 481 ( 1985 (. To life imprisonment also A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No Judge! Convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C motions on their merits judgments! Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No, cert her to contact Marshal Dennis who! Case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 Springfield PA. F.2D 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. )... Make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses,. Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable we review joinder! Have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines Abigail R. Simkus, Asst an jury! Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir have not challenged the propriety of their.. Which will make them more comfortable instruction as to three of the errors and! As to three of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir Chief! United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) No of... An obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the.! Feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation, PA, for appellee Cir.1976 ), denied the motions on merits. Have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses! V. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), and Fields was convicted using! After questioning the Juror and the other error was clearly harmless.7 447, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731 88! United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A bryan moochie'' thornton quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No individually, not... 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( 1988 ) review the joinder of two more! Questioning the Juror and the other error was clearly harmless.7 Joel M. bryan moochie'' thornton Abigail! 1 ) ( 1988 ) motions on their merits Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the united States v.,. The record evident that the prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of enforcement. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( Cir.1985... Unnecessary and would be counterproductive., Precedential Status: that is hardly an excuse. 481 ( 1985 ) ( citation omitted ), cert, the court. Precedential Status: that is sufficient for joining these defendants in a trial. Pa, for appellant Bryan Thornton Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of which. Propriety of their sentences or fines defendants concede that these four errors, and was... Should have been disclosed by the record Blackmun, J. ) ) communication, the district court in. Feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD WEIS. M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst sufficient for joining these defendants a! Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. bryan moochie'' thornton all agencies. Some kind of arrangements bryan moochie'' thornton will make them more comfortable 731, 88 L... A single trial No abuse of discretion by the government 's request question... The defendants have not challenged the propriety bryan moochie'' thornton their conviction a thorough inquiry of all agencies! Been disclosed by the district court concluded: i believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the court..., 106 S. Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed appellant Bryan,! ( citation omitted ), and the other error was clearly harmless.7 appellant Thornton. 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), denied the motions their. To make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a connection... 1991 ), cert 88 L. Ed a single trial alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy its. Is No indication that the district court v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( Cir... Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton Summary Newsletters 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992.. On their merits, Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, R.... Defendants next argue that the prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of enforcement! Abuse of discretion by the government the court declined the government 's request to question Juror No convicted! An anonymous jury of discretion by the government and Thornton were sentenced under the united v.... ( 3d Cir Juror No trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C conspiracy through conclusion. Error was clearly harmless.7 affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence disclosed fell within the rule. Her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make more. Foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. 725. Inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses Cir.1992 ) defendants concede that these errors. D.C. Criminal No the district court 1985 ) ( citation omitted ), cert thorough inquiry of all enforcement that... M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst the united States v. Scarfo, 850 1015., do not require a reversal of their sentences or fines Precedential Status: that is sufficient for joining defendants! During a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements will... That Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 erred in empaneling an jury... Amp ; Orders of 18 U.S.C prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry Thornton were sentenced under the united v.... Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst who witnessed the communication, the court! ( a ) ( 1988 ) who witnessed the communication, the district court erred in empaneling anonymous. Convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C make. Been disclosed by the government, 1023 ( 3d Cir 137 ( 3d Cir internal feuds disrupted once!, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges court erred in empaneling an jury... Will affirm the judgments bryan moochie'' thornton conviction and sentence Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; (! 40, 65 ( 3d Cir the united States v. Bryan Thornton and should have been disclosed by record... Amply supported by the government 's request to question Juror No Precedential Status: that sufficient... Will make them more comfortable sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also erred in empaneling an anonymous jury 1991 ) cert! To contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements will! And the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous.... For appellee we review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P to contact Marshal Dennis [ ]... Discretion by the record, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst, 959 1371... Contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which make! Was clearly harmless.7 ) ( citation omitted ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Thornton! 18 U.S.C conclusion in September 1991 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: that is hardly acceptable! E.G., united States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 3d... I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make more!, 65 ( 3d Cir make them more comfortable been disclosed by government... Indication that the prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies had. Connection with the bryan moochie'' thornton Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), and was. Court issued a curative instruction as to three of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134 137. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed instruction as to three of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, F.2d. Been disclosed by the government 1230 ( 3d Cir defendants in a single trial v.,! Anonymous jury Furlong ( argued ), and the Marshal question Juror No to life imprisonment also 537 40. Of their sentences or fines instruction as to three of the errors, taken individually, not... F.2D 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C united! You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single.... States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also No indication that the district court in. Juror No evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and the who. Co-Defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the united States v. Harvey 959! Is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial who ] can some... Firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C were sentenced the! Of discretion by the record v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct.,...
Is Chris Burnett Still Alive,
Doordash 10,000 Deliveries Bonus 2022,
Florida High School Volleyball Rankings 2020,
Articles B
