United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. App. at 1683. 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." Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. 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. 91-00570-03). United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. We have previously expressed a preference for individual juror colloquies " [w]here there is a significant possibility that a juror has been exposed to prejudicial extra-record information." Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 (emphasis added). That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 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. 92-1635. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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 and declined to remove Juror No. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. This case was filed in U.S. Courts Of Appeals, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 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. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 2d 590 (1992). 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. 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. App. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). 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." 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. ), cert. 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." It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. 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. 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." See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. R. Crim. Bryan has been highly . 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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. 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. 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. 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. 91-00570-05). United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). 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." 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. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 935 F.2d at 568. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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 denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. Filed: App. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. App. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 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. Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant[s] for use at trial." We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 Sec. at 49. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. S.App. sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] We will address each of these allegations seriatim. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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. (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 Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 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. [i]n determining whether to [question jurors] , the court must balance the probable harm resulting from the emphasis such action would place upon the misconduct and the disruption involved in conducting a hearing against the likely extent and gravity of the prejudice generated by that misconduct. 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. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 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. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). 914 F.2d at 944. As one court has persuasively asserted. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 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 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. 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. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 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." Sec. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 1978), cert. App. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. 4/21/92 Tr. 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. App. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. 91-00570-03. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . In Watchmaker, the district court met privately with one of the jurors who stated that she feared for her safety and reported that other jurors shared her apprehensiveness. 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. Id. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. 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. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. 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. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. App. 2d 769 (1990). Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. S.App. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Precedential, Citations: ", 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. 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." Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Michael Baylson, U.S. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 12 for scowling. rely on donations for our financial security. 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." 2d 572 (1986). The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. Anthony Ricciardi. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant [s] for use at 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. 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. 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, 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." App. App. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . 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. ), cert. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. ", 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. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th 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." 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: 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. Sec. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. at 92. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Thornton's argument is unpersuasive in light of our prior statement that to determine whether defendants are properly joined under Rule 8(b), "the reviewing court must look to the indictment and not the subsequent proof adduced at trial." 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse.