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." In response, Fields moved to strike 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. at 82. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. Nashville, TN. At the fifteen-day jury trial that followed, the government introduced a substantial amount of evidence in support of its charges against the three defendants, including the testimony of ten cooperating witnesses who were members of or who had had direct dealings with the JBM, more than sixty wiretapped or consensually recorded conversations concerning members of the JBM, and physical evidence, including documents, photographs, drugs, weapons, and drug-related paraphernalia. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. App. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. 91-00570-03). ), cert. 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. 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 Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 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. App. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. 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. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, leading him to be honored as a Disney Legend in 2006. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. 922(g) (1) (1988). Subscribe 1992). denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Defendants' final contention on appeal concerns the government's failure to disclose until after trial two letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) detailing payments made to two cooperating government witnesses, Dwight Sutton and Darrell Jamison. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. 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. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. S.App. at 93. 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. Sec. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. at 50-55. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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." There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. App. 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. 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 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. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 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. 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. 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. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. 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 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. 12 for scowling. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 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. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 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. ), cert. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. at 39. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal App. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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." 841(a)(1) (1988). 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. App.
Notion Change Page Title Color,
How Many Bars Does Jon Taffer Own,
Articles B