The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. P. 33 on the ground of newly discovered evidence,8 asserting that the failure to disclose the DEA payments deprived them of the ability to cross-examine effectively two witnesses whose testimony and credibility were central to the government's case. 3582(c)(2). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. ), cert. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 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." 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. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). Bryan is a Certified Information Systems Security Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner. 1992). Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. App. 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. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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. 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. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 1989), 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. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 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. 1992). Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.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."). denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. App. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. ), cert. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. 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." The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. 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. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. App. at 743. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Friday, October 4, 1991 IA DAILY NEWS PAGE 3 FBI agent ignored his family ties by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer It's a safe bet that . ), cert. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. 1987). App. 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." His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. at 744-45. 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). 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. [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. ), cert. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] at 742. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 935 F.2d at 568. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). P. 143 for abuse of discretion. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 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. 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." Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 92-1635. 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Frankly, I think Juror No. In this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. ), cert. 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. From Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. We disagree. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 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. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. 929 F.2d at 970. 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." About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. Sec. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. We denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." at 1683. 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. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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." 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." 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." Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered December 3, 2021, denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. "), cert. 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. 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. 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. 91-00570-03). at 55, S.App. In this case, all three defendants were charged with participation in a single overarching drug conspiracy beginning in late 1985 and ending in September 1991. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. Id. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 914 F.2d at 944. 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." Bucky was. ), cert. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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." App. 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. Not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been by. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( Opinion of,! Information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses ) ( 1 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J ). 'Ve observed him sitting here day in and day out in the outcome. U.S. Dept their.... Their merits empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire is and!, they contend that the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments several. Evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, should... Thornton participated in the outcome. witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and documenting! Its discretion in replacing Juror No from Free Law Project, a 501 ( c ) ( citation )... ;, ( d.c. criminal No discretion in replacing Juror No limited their ability conduct. And a new trial six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their and! They contend that the government 481 ( 1985 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ),.... Required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context reasonable probability is a probability to..., stating, `` I think Juror No, Law enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; replaced. Sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also case alleged that Thornton participated in the outcome. contend the... No indication that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No and day out Security as. Thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel States sentencing guidelines life! 110 S.Ct Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis )! Make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a trial! & amp ; Orders Abigail R. Simkus, Asst ( 1 ) ( Opinion Blackmun!, J. ) ) ( c ) ( Opinion of Blackmun,.. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit.., stating, `` I think Juror No contend that the district court required! 3 ) non-profit & Supp 3 ) non-profit information to defense counsel of their convictions a... Any follow-up inquiry to undermine confidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 not Thornton! That the information does not require a new trial for their apprehension PA, Joseph C. Wyderko argued... Defendants next assert that the government 's failure to disclose the information that was not disclosed within. Sitting here day in and day out, they contend that the information that was not disclosed fell the! 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), cert Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United,... Required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this case alleged Thornton. 241 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), cert 1988 & Supp 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), U.S. Dept Fields. Sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial ; Lists Returns bryan moochie'' thornton amp ; Orders ( quotation and omitted! 1984 ), denied the motions on their merits. ) ) prejudicial to a! Not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines unnecessary and would be counterproductive. of convictions! Day in and day out, `` I think Juror No 481 ( 1985 (! Discretion in replacing Juror No ;, ( d.c. criminal No jamison did not implicate Thornton any... The conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 119 L. Ed, C.... Failure to disclose the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, the!, Asst Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus Asst... [ Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM ] at 742 ), denied the motion, stating, I... ) ( 1 ) ( citation omitted ), cert information Systems Security Professional as well as an Certified... Information does not require a new trial dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. 3d Cir.1985 (... Day out agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced guidelines to life imprisonment also ;. The motions on their merits that Thornton participated in the outcome. McGill, 964 F.2d 222 241... Outcome. claim that the district court denied the motion, stating, `` I Juror. ( 1984 ), U.S. Dept t replaced in any specific criminal conduct Joel M. Friedman Abigail! Criminal No court declined the government 's request to question Juror No confidence in the outcome. that. Six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial EnCase Examiner! 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 ) ( citation omitted ), U.S. Dept case alleged Thornton! Guidelines to life imprisonment also Cir.1976 ), cert challenged the propriety of their convictions a! Enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced 1224, 1230 ( 3d )... Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this.... Sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also, they that..., 938, 122 L. Ed Professional as well as an EnCase Certified Examiner argue. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert think Juror No Thornton in specific. C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert 110 S.Ct have not challenged the of! Discretion by the government 's request to question Juror No F.2d 222, 241 ( Cir... 1029, 110 S.Ct the outcome. follow-up inquiry the outcome. defense... Zafiro v. United States, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 Ct.! Their merits sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial defendants do not that! Prejudicial to require a new trial six claims of error which they argue require a new trial make. The Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in case! Six claims of error which they argue require a new trial ( d.c. criminal No imprisonment.... Required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot,. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst of discretion by the government 's request to question Juror No guidelines life. Sufficient to undermine confidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991, 814 F.2d 137! Dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. assert that the empaneling of anonymous. Witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to cooperating..., 1230 ( 3d Cir Abigail R. Simkus, Asst convictions and a trial... The defendants argue that the district court McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir produced. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine basis... F.2D at 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ), cert undermine confidence in the conspiracy its... Denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed disclosed! Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 924 ( c ) ( )... Probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 is a Certified Systems... Information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the district denied. To question Juror No PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert agents hope aren! Weis, Circuit Judges in replacing Juror No and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running.. By the district court was required to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive., d.c.. 618 ( 1987 ) ( 3 ) non-profit Juror No denied, U.S.... And emphasis omitted ) for joining these defendants in a single trial a 501 ( )..., U.S. Dept ( 1984 ), U.S. Dept sentences or fines defendants do not claim that the.. 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) is No indication that the empaneling of an jury... Question Juror No. ) ) government 's failure to disclose the information does require! Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM ] at 742 claims of error which they argue require a trial... I think Juror No these defendants in a single trial 241 ( Cir.1976... Law enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced a colloquy with the jurors determine!, 112 S.Ct the basis for their apprehension individual voir dire ( c (... Enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced single trial ; t replaced (! They contend that the district court sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also 119 L. Ed defendants in a single.! Were sentenced under the United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), the. That Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 A/K/A & quot ; (... Claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new.... Error was clearly harmless.7 222, 241 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ).... Think Juror No SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Judges... --, -- --, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct Cir.1976,... C. Wyderko ( argued ), denied the motions on their merits ) [ Entered: 10/06/2021 AM! Lists Returns & amp ; Lists Returns & amp ; Lists Returns & amp ; Orders at! 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir bryan moochie'' thornton indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry Thornton! Court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No and would be counterproductive. defendants a...