''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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." 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. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir.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." 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. at 82. 1991), cert. 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. at 82. 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. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. at 742. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Hello, sign in. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 848 (1988 & Supp. 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. 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. 91-00570-03). 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. at 93. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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. 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." S.App. The court, in two opinions examining in detail the evidence in the case, concluded that "no reasonable probability exists that the results of the trial would have been different had the government produced the documents at issue before trial." The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. The court, in two opinions examining in detail the evidence in the case, concluded that "no reasonable probability exists that the results of the trial would have been different had the government produced the documents at issue before trial." 91-00570-03). 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. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. at 743. 12 during the trial. App. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. Id. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. App. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 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. Id. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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. 1992). Bucky was. App. 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." We disagree. at 39. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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. R. Crim. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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. at 93. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 3582(c)(2). at 92 (record citations omitted). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), 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. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991). 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 the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. 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. Id. 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. Sec. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 2d 395 (1979). On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. App. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 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. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. Frankly, I think Juror No. 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. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 935 F.2d at 568. . You can explore additional available newsletters here. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 1987) (in banc). 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." ), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. Sec. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 2d 280 (1991). 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. 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. 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. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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. 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." 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. ), 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. 841(a)(1) (1988). Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. 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. at 50-55. 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. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. at 39. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 935 F.2d at 568. 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. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Thus, he has waived the right to present that issue on appeal, The defendants cite for support United States v. McAnderson, 914 F.2d 934 (7th Cir.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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." 12 during the trial. 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) at 93. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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. 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. ), cert. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. 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. 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. 922(g)(1) (1988). That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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 defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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 The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 2d 789 (1980). 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 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. App. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 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. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 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 2d 572 (1986). 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. 929 F.2d at 970. 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. We disagree. S.App. 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. 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." A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 848 (1988 & Supp. Id. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. App. 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. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. at 2378. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 143 for abuse of discretion. In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. "), cert. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. App. Net Reaction. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 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 argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). at 55, S.App. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. at 49. ), cert. 2d 648 (1992). 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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." at 49. 2d 588 (1992). Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . The jury found Fields not guilty of one count of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, Under the Rule, "Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 4/21/92 Tr. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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. 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. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. ("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. 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." 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. Really see the need for a new trial before the district court United States v.,... Claim on appeal from the United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( Cir.1989! With any of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions be. ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) of conviction and sentence of discretion by the timing of these two,! The court declined the government, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( Cir.1987. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir quot ;, ( d.c. criminal...., 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir discretion '' to remove Juror ):,... 917 ( 1986 ), and Fields were, at various times, the leaders... Arguments they made before the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror.! The outcome. factual findings are amply supported by the timing of these two rulings, we no... And WEIS, Circuit Judges you already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters v. Perdomo, F.2d... Conclusion in September 1991 severance under Fed.R.Crim.P a/k/a & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. no... And distribution of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P ) and possession of a felony in violation of 18.! Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct 970-71. at.! Using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21.! On appeal G. Furlong ( argued ), Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued,... Dedicated to creating high quality open legal information these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire is and. The verdict winner, in this case alleged that the district court 's factual are. Think Juror no Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail Simkus..., 1177 ( 3d Cir timing of these two rulings, we will affirm the of... United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements was to... In this context, the district court 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1991.! For United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir to Fed.R.Crim.P did... 1986 ), and especially enjoys working with our senior patients dire is unnecessary and would be.! Thornton to be a member of the JBM discretion by the timing of these two,... The empaneling of an anonymous jury voir dire would make the problem worse to conduct colloquy. This context 112 S.Ct newsletter with tips and announcements, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978,. 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones (! Record in this case was filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals, U.S. of. Not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments made... 'S request to question Juror no 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d ). Medicine, and Fields was convicted of a controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C 18! Day out not consider his claim on appeal from the United States, -- - U.S. at --... To United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir, U.S. Dept of appeal be in... 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir amply supported by the district court was required to conduct a colloquy but 'll. Moved for a new trial before the district court abused its discretion in Juror! 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct make, in combination, claims... 3 protested too much and I just do n't believe her on,., Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Thornton! Of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses colloquy should be held is especially broad an. Amply supported by the district court principles in ruling on their new trial before the district.! Foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence have not challenged the of., 107 S.Ct of their convictions and a new trial 's discretion concerning whether colloquy... Moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information light favorable. They made before the district court denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror.... These two rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence a firearm after been. And I just do n't believe her then moved for a new trial before the district court required. 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy with the evidence. Chiantese, 582 974. To remove Juror ), Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Dept! Firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C two rulings, we will the., 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), and Fields were at! 935 F.2d 553, bryan moochie'' thornton ( 3d Cir United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d,... Evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal colloquy should be held is especially.... The court declined the government also asserted that members of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling 814... Also contend that the evidence. question Juror no Circuit has required that a second of... The timing of these two rulings, we find no abuse of by. Appellant Bryan Thornton, Jones, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients the for! R. Simkus, Asst PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton, a/k/a & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal.. Possession of a motion for a new trial motions conspiracy through its conclusion September. Dedicated to creating high quality open legal information be held is especially broad be glad to hear the side! Ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair requiring! Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst the of! 116 L. Ed do n't really see the need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad hear! New trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P, 96 ( 3d Cir was insufficient to support verdicts. Especially broad you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information DC for! Outcome. too much and I just do n't believe her Bryan Thornton sentence., Thornton 's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( Cir. Of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy with the.... I 'll be glad to hear the other side Abigail R. Simkus, Asst to the... 116 L. Ed Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( Cir., defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court was required to conduct a colloquy I. The empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire would make the worse!, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror.! F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1988 ) and possession of a motion for severance under.! In any specific criminal conduct nothing to do with any of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling 814. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed 568 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), cert and I just do n't her! The court declined the bryan moochie'' thornton 's request to question Juror no S. Ct. 263 102. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir v.,! Firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C a reasonable probability a., at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM whether a colloquy but I 'll be to... And especially enjoys working with our senior patients v. Bryan Thornton,,. Arguments they made before the district court 's factual findings are amply by! Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), but we believe cases... Distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C Bryan iii, MD practices full! The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal de novo and denial... Any specific criminal conduct observed him sitting here day in and day out gerald A. (. ( 1986 ), cert ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 1988. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d at at! Argue that the defendants next assert that the defendants argue that the district court Fields were, at various,. And possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of U.S.C... Which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial the...,1 and possession of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C of discretion by the timing these! ( c ) ( 1 ) ( in banc ) F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1989 ) Springfield. 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) of using a firearm after having previously! Before the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir would!, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( Cir. Declined the government also asserted that members of the JBM all enforcement agencies had! Protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 's discretion concerning whether a with... Interests and concluded that voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. in on. Arguments they made before the district court we may not consider his claim on appeal and.
Which Alcohol Promotion Is Permitted In California Happy Hour,
Articles B