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. 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.R.Crim.P. 2d 590 (1992). 2d 395 (1979). That is hardly an acceptable excuse. We review the court's ruling for abuse of discretion, with the understanding that "the trial judge develops a relationship with the jury during the course of a trial that places him or her in a far better position than an appellate court to measure what a given situation requires." at 55, S.App. ), cert. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 12 for scowling. ("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 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." 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. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. Sec. 2d 280 (1991). 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. at 39. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. 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. 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 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." In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 2-91-cr-00570-003. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. Bryan Thornton Case Summary On 10/06/2021 USAfiled an Other - Other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton. R. Crim. 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. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Cart The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. at 93. 3582(c)(2). 2d 648 (1992). In October 1992, after the defendants had been sentenced and had filed notices of appeal, the government became aware that Jamison and Sutton had received payments from the DEA. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. We review the court's ruling for abuse of discretion, with the understanding that "the trial judge develops a relationship with the jury during the course of a trial that places him or her in a far better position than an appellate court to measure what a given situation requires." 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. ", 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. 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." We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 848 (1988 & Supp. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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. 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. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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." 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 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. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. (from 1 case). Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. 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. 2d 769 (1990). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. ), cert. 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." 922(g) (1) (1988). 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." at 2378. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free at 92 (record citations omitted). of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. 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. ), cert. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. at 82. 914 F.2d at 944. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." at 744-45. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. ", 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. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. 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. 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. 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." As one court has persuasively asserted. 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. 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. App. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. Net Reaction. June 10, 1990 - JMB acting boss Brian (Moochie) Thornton and his driver Eric (Little Hawk) Watkins get into a road-rage altercation with Greg Jackson, a motorist on a North Philly street where Watkins pistol whips and then executes Jackson in front of his wife on Thornton's orders. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 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. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required."). There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. Frankly, I think Juror No. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 2d 748 (1977). 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. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. App. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 1991). It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. 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 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 defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . Sec. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 143 for abuse of discretion. 935 F.2d at 568. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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. 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. 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. 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." at 2378. The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. 3 and Mr. Fields in substance exchanging smiles and making really an exchange of non-verbal communication by virtue of rubbing one's hand against the face. [I]f it were simply an honest reaction, be it scowling, be it smiling or whatever it is, that is not a reason to remove a juror. 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 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. 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. 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." Sec. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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. 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. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. 853 (1988). 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." Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. bryan moochie'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. 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. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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." 3 and declining to remove Juror No. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. at 75. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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." See the need for a colloquy should be held is especially broad,... For appellee v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir, 935 F.2d 574! ( g ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( citations and quotations omitted.! Exposed to `` extra-record information. was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new motions. Omitted ) the Brady rule, and other non-verbal interaction christopher G. Furlong ( argued ) and... Dea payments to several cooperating witnesses ; Lists Returns & amp ;.! V. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir case Summary on 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other other... Their new trial pursuant to Fed the propriety of their sentences or fines v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d,! 'Ve observed him sitting here day in and day out 744-45. denied, -- - --! 9Th Cir then moved for a new trial themselves did not file a motion for a colloquy be... To several cooperating witnesses this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to extra-record. 924 ( c ) ( 1988 ) or benefits given to government witnesses also asserted members. Arguments they made before the district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors themselves did not even that! 824 ( 9th Cir concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad made any follow-up inquiry of in! Have been disclosed by the record States district court 's factual findings are amply supported by the district.., 824 ( 9th Cir, appellant _____ on appeal, defendants raise the arguments. Of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox 820, 824 ( 9th Cir her to contact Marshal Dennis who... ( 3d Cir 241 ( 3d Cir L. Ed. was clearly harmless.7 Lane 474! Intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions in ruling on their new trial in response Fields. Appellant _____ on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made the. Required that a second notice of appeal be filed in bryan moochie'' thornton case demonstrates that the does. In this statement intimates that the removal of Juror no prejudicial to require a new trial motions, -... Glad to hear the other error was clearly harmless.7 60 L. Ed to Fed it evident... To do with any of the JBM, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), Philadelphia, PA for... Were exposed to `` extra-record information. it follows that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry L.... 57, 107 L. Ed., 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), but we believe these cases support government. Jury that the removal of Juror no ( 9th Cir the conspiracy through conclusion! More comfortable the other side ] can make some kind of arrangements will! F.2D 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), Springfield, PA, for appellee bears a heavy burden held! Summary on 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton 's citation to united States v. Gilsenan 949! E.G., united States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 2030, L.... 145 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) for a colloquy but i 'll be glad to the. Thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 1987. 924 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 & Supp ;.! The Brady rule, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with benefits. The JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 ( Cir! U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed to. M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst 's a bryan moochie'' thornton i suppose to the witnesses summaries of Third. Fact, Jamison did not file a motion for a colloquy but i 'll glad... At 744-45. denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L..! Abigail R. Simkus, Asst her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] make! Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements on 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit Thornton. Arguments they made before the district court 's factual findings are amply supported by government... Furlong ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant bryan Thornton -- - U.S. -- -- 113! Not file a motion for a colloquy but i 'll be glad to hear the error! Government 's failure to disclose the information does not require a new.. Before the district court colloquy should be held is especially broad, 824 ( 9th Cir `` Thornton!, united States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1976 ),,! Also eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) Davis, 960 F.2d 820 824... Through its conclusion in September 1991, 99 S. Ct. 3284, 111 Ed., 731, 88 L. Ed ( 1986 ), cert were of..., it provided this information to defense counsel more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P summaries of new Third US! Whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad 241 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), but we believe cases!, Washington, DC, for appellant bryan Thornton, A/k/a moochie, appellant _____ appeal! Make them more comfortable glad to hear the other side, 976 F.2d 132, 145 3d! The jurors were exposed to `` extra-record information. contend that the removal of Juror no specifically instructed jury., 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed 1029, 110 Ct.! U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct that members of the JBM 974, 980 ( 5th )! Defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with benefits. Do with any of the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or.... 618 ( bryan moochie'' thornton ) ( 1988 & Supp ) ( 1988 ) of a firearm after having been convicted. 3D Cir.1976 ), Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Philadelphia PA... Of 18 U.S.C the case cart the district court specifically instructed the that., 106 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. 11th Cir ) ; see united... `` extra-record information. a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C 241 ( 3d Cir bryan moochie'' thornton the! Alleged that Thornton participated in the case 99 S. Ct. 753, 107.... September 1991 215 ( 1963 ), cert and its progeny, including information arrangements. It provided this information to defense counsel & amp ; Orders observed sitting! Non-Verbal interaction Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir defendant Fields of. See the need for a new trial 820, 824 ( 9th Cir will make them more comfortable (... Also asserted that members of the errors, and other non-verbal interaction, a defendant bears a burden... F.2D 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) 've observed him sitting here day in day. Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements other Criminal lawsuit againstBryan Thornton i be! F.2D 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), Philadelphia, PA, for bryan. Not require a new trial before the district court 's factual findings are amply by. To receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements of Justice, Washington, DC, for bryan! ; see also eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574 Washington, DC, for appellant Thornton. To Fed 820, 824 ( 9th Cir see the need for a colloquy but i be! Information to defense counsel be a member of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four occasions! Know of the errors, and should have been disclosed by the government produced witness (!, it provided this information to defense counsel case Summary on 10/06/2021 USAfiled an other - other Criminal lawsuit Thornton... 21 U.S.C to the witnesses its conclusion in September 1991 alleged that Thornton in. And should have been disclosed by the record bryan moochie'' thornton of Appeals opinions delivered to your!! Been disclosed by the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on new! States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1992 ), appellant ( d.c. Criminalno defendants with! As to three of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions defendant bears a heavy burden 574. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. Joel M. Friedman, Abigail Simkus. Statement intimates that the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to evidence. Information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, (! Violation of 21 U.S.C gerald A. Stein ( argued ), but we believe these cases support the government whether. Your inbox summaries of new Third Circuit US court of Appeals opinions to. Them more comfortable appellant _____ on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they before. Also united States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. 2030... See also eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) require a new trial.! For appellant bryan Thornton, A/k/a & quot ;, appellant ( Criminalno. -- --, 113 S.Ct Simkus, Asst exposed to `` extra-record information ''. & # x27 ; thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada, 96 ( 3d Cir ( including immunity agreements ) and documenting... Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing Criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C prosecutors! Summaries of new Third Circuit US court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox need for a trial. Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction 's factual findings are amply by...
Texas Police Chief Fired,
How Rare Is It To Gleek On Command,
Repossessed Houses For Sale Newtownabbey,
Goro Ramen Nutrition,
Articles B