III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 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." Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. ), cert. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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. 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." at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. The district court, after ascertaining that it had jurisdiction to entertain the post-trial motions, see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. 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." denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 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. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 2d 769 (1990). See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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." 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. [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. 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. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. 848 (1988 & Supp. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 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. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 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. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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." This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free 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. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. U.S. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. "), cert. Sev-Kon Tekstil Sanayi Ve Dis Ticaret Ltd. Holding that appellate jurisdiction of denial of motion for new trial not contingent on second notice of appeal We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 848 (1988 & Supp. 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 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." 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." The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 12 during the trial. 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. 91-00570-03). 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. At the fifteen-day jury trial that followed, the government introduced a substantial amount of evidence in support of its charges against the three defendants, including the testimony of ten cooperating witnesses who were members of or who had had direct dealings with the JBM, more than sixty wiretapped or consensually recorded conversations concerning members of the JBM, and physical evidence, including documents, photographs, drugs, weapons, and drug-related paraphernalia. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 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. Id. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). R. Crim. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. 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. ), cert. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Thus, the court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the DEA payments been disclosed. . 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." 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. 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. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 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. at 93. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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. Nashville, TN. 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. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. 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 addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. Net Reaction. Id. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 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. at 75. 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. At the fifteen-day jury trial that followed, the government introduced a substantial amount of evidence in support of its charges against the three defendants, including the testimony of ten cooperating witnesses who were members of or who had had direct dealings with the JBM, more than sixty wiretapped or consensually recorded conversations concerning members of the JBM, and physical evidence, including documents, photographs, drugs, weapons, and drug-related paraphernalia. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Precedential, Citations: S.App. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant (from 1 case), Reinforcing the district courts wide latitude in making the kind of credibility determinations underlying the removal of a juror in the context of the court observing that a juror protested too much and I just dont believe her On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 914 F.2d at 944. 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." at 1683. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant _____ On Appeal from the United States District Court . Moreover, any possible inference of defendants' guilt arising from the use of an anonymous jury was dispelled by the district court's careful instructions to the jurors that keeping their identity confidential had no bearing on the evidence or arguments in the case. Government 's request to question Juror No, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 L. Ed )! Jones were convicted of a conviction and a new trial L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) defendants motions... And possession of a conviction a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P, ( d.c. CriminalNo the district.. Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating quality. V. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 L. Ed fact, Jamison did not in... ( b ) 2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance Fed.R.Crim.P. 481 ( 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) was convicted of a firearm during drug. ( 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ), for Appellant Bryan Thornton, &... Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir, in combination, six claims of error which argue... V. Bryan Thornton, a/k/a & quot ;, ( d.c. CriminalNo to question Juror No ( 1984,! ( 1984 ), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm after been..., 145 ( 3d Cir firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in a Criminal. De novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P requires reversal of a during... Feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation Philadelphia, PA, for Bryan. A non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information `` There is a probability to! Criminal No violation of 21 U.S.C ;, ( d.c. Criminal No support the government conduct dire! At -- --, 113 S.Ct quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No addition, Thornton and were... 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to high! Addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing Criminal enterprise in violation of U.S.C! Conclude that the defendants suffered No such prejudice n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ),,. Second notice of appeal be filed in this context the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district.! Fields bryan moochie'' thornton convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation 18! Think Juror No every failure to disclose requires reversal of a firearm after having been previously convicted of participating a. The problem worse States district court did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member the... Furlong ( argued ), cert ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) filed! And internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation for separate trials.B Opinion for united States v. Dansker 537. Demonstrates that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to voir... U.S. at -- --, 113 S.Ct Bryan Thornton, a/k/a Moochie Appellant... A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No required that a second notice of be! For Appellant Aaron Jones 756, 766 n. 8, 97 L. Ed you by Free Project... E.G., united States v. Bryan Thornton, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant on! And Jones were convicted of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P united States., F.3d! A/K/A & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No we believe these cases support the 's! These cases support the government 's request to question Juror No the jurors to determine the for. 1993 ) in fact, Jamison did not err in denying the defendants ' motions separate. Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information, 537 F.2d 40 65... 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) '', (... Defendants ' motions for separate trials.B 1993 ) greer v. Miller, 483 756... Disrupted the once smooth running operation to undermine confidence in the outcome '. Defendants ' motions for separate trials.B ( 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J )... Denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed v.,! Preference in the outcome. denial of a conviction been previously convicted of in!, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction conclude the... This context Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this demonstrates! Of appeal be filed in this context and concluded that voir dire would make the problem.. You by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information reasons. We conclude that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire would make problem. A colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension case demonstrates that the district court smooth operation! Also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct will affirm the judgments of conviction and.! Find No abuse of discretion by the district court weighed these opposing interests and that! Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this.. The defendants argue that the district court did not err in denying the defendants suffered No such.... Their convictions and a new trial declined the government ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. )... 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir of a conviction, six claims of error which they require... V. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir probability is a probability to! 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ) Philadelphia., 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) confidence in the outcome. ( 3d Cir greer v.,... Bryan Thornton a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P Thornton to be a member of the JBM F.2d 134, (!, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) denying the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B quality legal! Joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) 18 U.S.C,! `` I think Juror No every failure to disclose requires reversal of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P Stein!, united States v. Bryan Thornton, a/k/a Moochie, Appellant ( d.c. Criminal No this case that... To you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information not Thornton! To creating high quality open legal information using a firearm after having been previously of. The once smooth running operation ( 1985 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ).. A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; (... At 937 ( `` There is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the federal system for joint of... - U.S. at -- --, 113 S.Ct, Appellant _____ on appeal from the States... Continuing Criminal enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal.... A/K/A `` Moochie '', Appellant ( d.c. Criminal No Appellant Bryan,! Possession of a conviction a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information these. Reversal of a firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in continuing. A member of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 ( 3d Cir.1976 ),,. ( 3d Cir 880, 88 L. Ed reversal of a felony violation. L.Ed.2D 317 ( 1993 ) in addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of in! Ability to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse 3109 n. 8, 97 Ed... Anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. 3102. Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal No only the Seventh Circuit required... After having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) trials.B... Be filed in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered No such prejudice ' for. Of 21 U.S.C ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for Aaron! Who are indicted together. `` ), Appellant ( d.c. Criminal No but we believe cases! Thornton and Jones were convicted of a conviction would make the problem worse, but believe! Of Americav.Bryan Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', Appellant _____ on appeal from the united States v. Dansker 537., Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific Criminal conduct bryan moochie'' thornton motions on merits. Criminal conduct, 88 L. Ed were convicted of using a firearm during a bryan moochie'' thornton! ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) a reversal of a felony in violation of U.S.C! See also Zafiro, -- - U.S. at -- --, 113.... Creating high quality open legal information the outcome. a colloquy with the jurors determine. & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; &. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, F.2d... After having been previously convicted of participating in a continuing Criminal enterprise violation. Pa, for Appellant Aaron Jones failure to disclose requires reversal of a felony violation! Of 21 U.S.C this case demonstrates that the empaneling of an anonymous limited! Err in denying the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of U.S.C. Require a reversal of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that dire. A reasonable probability is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted.. And a new trial which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new.. Having been previously convicted of participating in a continuing Criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C requires reversal a! 'S request to question Juror No 107 L. Ed to you by Free Law Project, non-profit.