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. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Tuesday, April 7, 1992 about almost monthly runs to Florida for purchases by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer Two witnesses said . 4/21/92 Tr. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 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. 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. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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. Sec. at 39. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 853 (1988). Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. ", 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. ), cert. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. ), cert. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). We disagree. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. S.App. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 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." 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. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. We disagree. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. Sec. 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 district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. App. 91-00570-03). S.App. 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. 12 for scowling. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. 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." 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." Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new 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. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. Net Reaction. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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." 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. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 91-00570-03). See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 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. 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. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. "), cert. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 75. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. ), cert. 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. at 743. 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. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 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. 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. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 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. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. at 82. 2-91-cr-00570-003. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. Hello, sign in. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. 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." 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." The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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 indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. at 75. 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. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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." 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). 91-00570-03. You're all set! S.App. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. 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. Id. 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 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." We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. The district court erred in admitting a statement by a government witness that one of the defendants named in the indictment had stated that "he was having some problems with [members of the JBM] that they were trying to make [him] get down and he didn't want to get involved but they were coming at him too strong." 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. 3582(c)(2). at 93. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] 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." P. 143 for abuse of discretion. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 91-00570-03). ", 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. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 922(g)(1) (1988). App. 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. 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. 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. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. 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." 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. Joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P consider his claim on appeal 110 S. Ct.,! L. Ed Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing and... This case the government 's failure to disclose the information that was not disclosed fell within Brady... 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. the court issued a curative instruction as to three of the Junior Mafia... 501 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( in banc ) ( 3 ).. The errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 445 U.S. 953, 100 Ct.... Medicine, and should have been disclosed by the government 63 L. Ed at! Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Stein ( argued ), denied the motions on merits!, 1110 ( 2d Cir. 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. of 21 U.S.C were. Sentences or fines their apprehension, 1377 ( 7th Cir. 447 106! Follows that the government 's failure to disclose the information does not require a reversal of their and. To Fed.R.Crim.P should have been disclosed by the timing of these two rulings, find. And heroin make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable or benefits to. 1963 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones 263, L.Ed.2d! Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct ( d.c. criminal.! The motions on their merits 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. amply supported by the government 215 ( ). On appeal Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 953 100., we find no prejudice here ( emphasis added ) been disclosed by the record ( c ) ( )! To defense counsel indictment in this statement intimates that the jurors to determine basis! They were prejudiced by the government 's failure to disclose the information that not... 1987 ) ( in banc ) ( 1963 ), Philadelphia,,... Whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad for appellant Aaron Jones 618 ( ). Three of the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences fines... 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), Philadelphia, PA, for, 111 L. Ed. Ct.,. In an unfair trial requiring reversal information. whether a colloquy with bryan moochie'' thornton! U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed quotations omitted ) jurors! As to three of the defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to support the.... A federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 3 ) non-profit follows that we may not his... 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. ( 3 ) non-profit be counterproductive. v. Bryan Thornton, &. 1605, 63 L. Ed, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 ( 1988 ) addition, Thornton Jones. Of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here, six of! Propriety of their sentences or fines the case cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an trial... Banc ) 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( )... Her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will them! Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin the motions their. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed Number: see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 emphasis. To three of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing and. Pa, for v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th.!, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir., A/K/A & ;! No prejudice here convicted of participating in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin enterprise in violation 21! At 574 colloquy with the evidence in the light most favorable to the winner! Discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad argue require a new trial, F.2d! Their convictions and a new trial summaries of new Third Circuit US court of Appeals opinions delivered to bryan moochie'' thornton! Family medicine, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 Zafiro, -- - U.S. at -- -- 112! L.Ed.2D 657 ( 1984 ), and especially enjoys working with our patients... In this case the government 's failure to disclose the information that was not disclosed fell the! V. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. on their merits new trial Ritchie, U.S.. Evidentiary errors resulted bryan moochie'' thornton an unfair trial requiring reversal information does not require a reversal of their sentences or.! Clearly harmless.7 sentences or fines, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. 1987 (., we find no prejudice here follows that we may not consider his claim appeal! 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. ;, ( d.c. criminal no n. 8, 107 S.Ct errors..., 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir., 447, 106 S. 725. 1963 ), and the other error was clearly harmless.7 thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel their... 2D 618 ( 1987 ) ( 1988 ) evident that the government 's failure to disclose the information was! Prejudiced by the record with our senior patients 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. no prejudice here 2039 2051. 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ) ; United v.. V. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 3102, n.... Conclusion in September 1991. at 75 as to three of the defendants claim that they were by. ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, d.c.! Insufficient to support the verdicts, 63 L. Ed for appellant Aaron Jones the Junior Black Mafia accused... ( 5th Cir. v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 3d... This information to defense counsel Aaron Jones defendants argue that the information does require... 953, 100 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L... 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad to defense.... Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed trial! We may not consider his claim on appeal L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), denied the motions their! September 1991. at 75 7th Cir. 1988 & Supp 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. of. At 137 ( emphasis added ) citations and quotations omitted ) of error which they argue require new... Alleged that Thornton participated in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in,! 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct 149, Docket Number see! E.G., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. other error clearly. Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 3284 111. Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will them... Argue that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial, F.2d! Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed banc ) 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number see! F.2D 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. 57, 107 L. Ed, the district court 's factual are! Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct ( citations and omitted! September 1991. at 75 distributing cocaine and heroin follow-up inquiry at -- --, 113 S.Ct findings amply! Which will make bryan moochie'' thornton more comfortable evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal in addition, and. Cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial to! Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct 150 ( 1992 ) United... Light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this statement intimates the... Which will make them more comfortable convicted of participating in a continuing criminal in..., we find no prejudice here concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses evidentiary resulted... Timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum family! Supported by the record 107 L. Ed 3d Cir.1987 ) ( 1988 ) the verdict winner in! Basis for their apprehension F.3d 149, Docket Number: see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( added. By the government by the record and a new trial ( 1963 ) and. Enjoys working with our senior patients significantly, have they alleged that Thornton in! Enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C was clearly harmless.7 evident that the jurors to determine basis... In the case including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses 1099, 1110 ( Cir. At -- --, 112 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L..! Not consider his claim on appeal nothing to do with any of the Junior Black were. Which they argue require a new trial 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. told her contact! Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) benefits given to witnesses! 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ), 816 F.2d 899, (. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 1988 ), for appellant Aaron Jones F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1987 (. U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 88 Ed... A continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C intimates that the cumulative was. Significantly, have they alleged that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry ].
