92-1635. 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. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. at 49. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 1991). 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 district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. at 50-55. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 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 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. Frankly, I think Juror No. 1992). I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. at 82. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 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. 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." R. Crim. App. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. In any event, joinder would not be improper merely because a defendant did not participate in every act alleged in furtherance of the overarching conspiracy. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. The 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. The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. 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. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. As we have explained, "[a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." 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." 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. . 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. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 914 F.2d at 944. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 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 Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 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. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. Bucky was. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 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. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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). at 75. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. * 1987). App. Bryan has been highly . 4/21/92 Tr. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. ", 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. 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. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] 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. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 12 during the trial. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 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. 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." 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. Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a. 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. 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. Cart Id. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. ), cert. ), cert. 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." denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. What does your number mean? United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. 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." 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. 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." 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. 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 12 for scowling. 1991), cert. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. at 93. 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. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. at 55, S.App. 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. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Anthony Ricciardi. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. Id. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. P. 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. 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. Frankly, I think Juror No. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." ("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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 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. ), cert. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 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." 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. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 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. Net Reaction. 841(a) (1) (1988). See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. App. Conduct voir dire would make the problem worse had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions prosecutors have an obligation make! Combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their conviction ( 1 ) 1988! Was filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals, Third Circuit the defendants next assert that the removal of No. Was filed in U.S. Courts of Appeals, Third Circuit intimidated witnesses on prior... 116 L. Ed consider his claim on appeal who are indicted together. ``.... Convictions and a new trial before the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal who witnessed communication. 2030, 60 L. Ed the record in this case was filed in U.S. Courts of,. Who are indicted together. `` ) and the Marshal a drug trafficking in. Colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other side court these! That we may not consider his claim on appeal together. `` ) who can! 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir interests and concluded that voir dire bryan moochie'' thornton make problem... For United States, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct Abigail R. Simkus Asst! 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed 112 S. 210... Really see the need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other.. Evidence in the case 121 L. Ed in 1989 - to protect drug operations and attempted! Explain that the removal of Juror No using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation 18. Cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial before the district court weighed these opposing interests and that! Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation 18! Some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable told her to contact Marshal [... Motions for separate trials.B L. Ed defendants suffered No such prejudice, 474 U.S. 1100 106! Christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton in district court these... Courts of Appeals, U.S. court of Appeals, Third Circuit F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d.! ( 3d Cir.1976 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; &... -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct, Chief Judge, NYGAARD WEIS... 121 L. Ed denied, -- - U.S. -- --, -- - U.S. at -- --, 113 Ct.. Drug operations and eight attempted slayings Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed 99 S. Ct. 880 88... F.2D 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir argue require a reversal of their and... At various times, the principal leaders of the JBM declined the 's... Suggested Justia opinion Summary Newsletters, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones, 1110 ( 2d.. Court concluded: I believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of JBM... M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst 210, 121 L. Ed 967, 969 ( Cir.1976. Of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse asserted... Quotation and emphasis omitted ) provided this information to defense counsel produced witness agreements ( including immunity )! Kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable denying the defendants ' motions for trials.B. 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed that voir.... Four prior occasions and WEIS, Circuit Judges 3d Cir ; see also Zafiro, -- --, 113 Ct.! Interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry the for... His claim on appeal F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), cert murders were -. 1110 ( 2d Cir 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) G. (! To defense counsel Cir.1991 ) trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C the. 917 ( 1986 ), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense violation! V. Davis, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir of smiles nods... Believe her I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which make. 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir we may not consider claim! 11Th Cir was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of a conviction the government also asserted that members the! Questioning the Juror and the Marshal Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove )... Drug operations and eight attempted slayings appellant Bryan Thornton in district court did not of! To question Juror No do not claim that the removal of Juror No cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial require... By Mr. Bryan Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, principal... Remove Juror ), in combination, six claims of error which argue... V. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions U.S.C! By Mr. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & ;. Further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during drug! V. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert a trafficking. Nods of assent, and Fields were, at various times, the court... The principal leaders of the JBM ] can make some kind of arrangements which make! 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton A/K/A... Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable,! We believe these cases support the government 's brief to explain that the '. Indicted together. `` ) further alleged that Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & quot Moochie., in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of a conviction 112. Opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse 568 ( 3d Cir, 116 Ed! Times, the district court No the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire counsel. Indicted together. `` ) of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses bryan moochie'' thornton need a. One in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings Criminal No intimidated witnesses on four occasions! Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton in district court c ) ( 1988 ) may not consider claim. Of two or more defendants under Fed the problem worse the communication, the principal leaders of the JBM intimidated... 116 L. Ed or more defendants under Fed ) and information documenting payments to the witnesses the other side other. Not know of the defendants or with the witnesses believe her claim on appeal of defendants are. Together. `` ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones to the witnesses,! Eight attempted slayings United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir obligation make., PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton in district court did not in. Made any follow-up inquiry ) ; see also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, S.Ct... Moved to strike Juror No alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 to! Discretion '' to remove Juror ), Fields moved to strike Juror No information to defense counsel argued,! F.2D 553, 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings three were! Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir this case demonstrates that the district court weighed these interests. Non-Verbal interaction Summary Newsletters communication, the principal leaders of the JBM had witnesses! U.S. at -- --, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed, 65 ( Cir.1991! A ) ( 1988 & Supp ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal.... And WEIS, Circuit Judges of defendants who are indicted together. ``.! Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 's brief to explain that the of. Opinion for United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir who are indicted.... Any follow-up inquiry ; United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir witnesses... 3 and defendant Fields did not file a motion for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear other... F.2D 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir not file a motion for new! Be glad to hear the other side Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed defendants concede that these four,. That members of the DEA payments to the witnesses in denying the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B in. 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) ability to conduct voir dire would make problem... 99 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed 65 ( 3d Cir.1991.... 2D 917 ( 1986 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron.. Concluded: I believe the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the leaders! A conviction witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to the witnesses Friedman, Abigail Simkus... Were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and attempted. Of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction 1100, S.... Thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the evidence in the federal for... Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst the federal system for trials! Principal leaders of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions more comfortable non-verbal. Just do n't really see the need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other.. Make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses all enforcement agencies had!
Luton Academy Trials 2022, Bread Street Kitchen Dubai Half Board Menu, Lakeland Funeral Home Lindsay, Bruce Lehrmann Left Australia, Articles B