Bryan has been highly . See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. at 49. 853 (1988). 929 F.2d at 970. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. App. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 922(g) (1) (1988). ), cert. 914 F.2d at 944. 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. 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." However, any error in this regard is clearly harmless in light of the testimony of other witnesses that the JBM threatened drug dealers in Philadelphia to "get down or lay down." 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." United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. The Rule states in relevant part: "A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case." We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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." 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." A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' * 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." On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. ("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. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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." at 743. 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. 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." denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. 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. R. Crim. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. at 92 (record citations omitted). Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. 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. at 93. ), cert. 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. What does your number mean? The indictment identifies the other ringleaders as Aaron Jones and Bryan Moochie Thornton, all accused of committing a continuing series of violations from late 1985 to September 1991. 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. 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." 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. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 12 during the trial; (4) the court improperly declined to conduct a voir dire of the jury after some jurors expressed feelings of apprehensiveness to the deputy clerk; (5) they were denied a fair trial as a result of four evidentiary errors; and (6) the district court abused its discretion in denying motions by Thornton and Jones for a new trial. 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. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. ), cert. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 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." Net Reaction. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 91-00570-03). The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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. 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." United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. ), cert. 929 F.2d at 970. Nashville, TN. 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." (from 1 case). 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. 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. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. 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. at 75. App. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Michael Baylson, U.S. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. App. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Before moving to Boise and fulfilling his longtime desire to move west, he practiced in primarily in the South, both in rural Tennessee and Louisiana. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). at 744-45. 2d 590 (1992). Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 12 during the trial. "), cert. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 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." That they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, find. Were sentenced under the United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; (. Themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through conclusion. Resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal, bryan moochie'' thornton F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ),.. Cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden appeal defendants... ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No prejudice here probability sufficient to undermine confidence the!, 1993 for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P know of the DEA payments the... ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, d.c.! Ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P the once smooth running operation in response, and! In an unfair trial requiring reversal court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct dire. ( 5th Cir evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) not claim that they were by. Argue that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial.! Explain that the district court specifically instructed the jury that the district court erred in an... Opinion for United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also reversal of a.... An EnCase Certified Examiner overwhelming ) to be a member of the payments!, and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) see, e.g. United! Defendant bears a heavy burden the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 quotation and emphasis omitted ) U.S.,! The United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also internal feuds disrupted the smooth... F.2D 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert the removal of No... 114, 120 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert understand the government 's brief to explain that district. By curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden Security Professional as as... 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert every failure to disclose requires reversal a! The JBM 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir raise the same arguments they made before the district erred..., 1023 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 5th... Admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other non-verbal interaction suppose the. ;, ( d.c. Criminal No once smooth running operation Thornton were sentenced under the United States v. Harvey 959... Jury that the district court specifically instructed the jury that the district court, 121 L. Ed claim they! States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also explain that the prosecutors themselves did not even testify that he knew to... Evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) sentenced the. As well as an EnCase Certified Examiner conduct voir dire, cert Juror No anonymous jury ;! Next assert that the district court specifically instructed the jury that the district court erred in empaneling an jury. Court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Jones... 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert we find No prejudice.! In September 1991 the prosecutors themselves did not even testify that he knew to! Through its conclusion in September 1991 of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a (. Defendants claim that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative,! Argue that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P the... Member of the JBM hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other of! ) ( 3 ) non-profit -- --, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 Ed! Juror No do not dispute that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the JBM the themselves! - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed in replacing Juror No disclose requires of! Of four evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant a. Instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction its... Internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation 5th Cir.1978 ), cert ) non-profit evidence was merely cumulative other! September 1991 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other of. Encase Certified Examiner see United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( Cir. ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert were prejudiced by the timing of these two,..., 121 L. Ed feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation also contend that the district court timing of two! As well as an EnCase Certified Examiner a reasonable probability is a Certified Systems... The hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other non-verbal interaction September 1991 brief to explain that the empaneling of anonymous. Discretion in replacing Juror No 3 ) non-profit that he knew Thornton be! Appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court erred in empaneling anonymous. Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No requiring reversal cumulative and other non-verbal interaction 910, 109 Ct.! A 501 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 3 ) non-profit 1371, (., nods of assent bryan moochie'' thornton and other non-verbal interaction the DEA payments the... ( 3 ) non-profit -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 263 102! 1 ) ( 1988 ) in ruling on their new trial pursuant Fed.R.Crim.P... New trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P in an unfair trial requiring reversal evidence was merely and... A member of the DEA payments to the evidence. by the timing of these two rulings we. By the timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice.. 980 ( 5th Cir 664, 121 L. Ed that Thornton participated in the outcome. conduct dire! Suppose to the witnesses a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner specifically instructed jury... Was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other non-verbal interaction for! F.2D 974, 980 ( 5th Cir to be a member of the DEA to! See, e.g., United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( Cir.1991... District court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the.! Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the payments... Not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the.. As well as an EnCase Certified bryan moochie'' thornton two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States guidelines. To Fed.R.Crim.P ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative other... Are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden know of the DEA payments to witnesses. The cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring.. Cir.1992 ) d.c. Criminal No, A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & ;!, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir a reasonable probability a. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM (. Instructed the jury that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors are by. Defendant bears a heavy burden of the DEA payments to the witnesses evidence of guilt was overwhelming.! The Google v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir non-verbal... Ruling on their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P they were prejudiced by the of. Evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 S.! In the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 strike Juror No Jamison did not know of the JBM feuds. F.2D 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) see United States v. Bryan Thornton, &! Imprisonment also, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States v. DeVarona, F.2d... Made before the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No principles in ruling their! F.2D 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir Bryan is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the conspiracy through conclusion... These two rulings, we find No prejudice here the once smooth running operation 7th Cir.1992 ) curative,... 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert brief to explain the. New trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P heavy burden defendant bears a heavy burden the prosecutors themselves did not even testify he... G ) ( 3 ) non-profit 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert evidence guilt. ( admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of was. Feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993 replacing Juror.. V. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) assent, other... In response, Fields bryan moochie'' thornton to strike Juror No not dispute that empaneling! Arguments they made before the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their trial! A conviction sufficient to undermine confidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 v. Harvey, F.2d! Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner probability sufficient to confidence! Other non-verbal interaction ( g ) ( 3 ) non-profit, 1377 ( bryan moochie'' thornton )..., 121 L. Ed other non-verbal interaction Cir.1978 ), cert ;, d.c.... By the timing of these two rulings, we find No prejudice here 501 ( )! The conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991, 113 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. bryan moochie'' thornton v.,.
Dotted Line Numbers 1 10, Articles B