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. ), cert. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 922(g)(1) (1988). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran was an American director, producer, and former child actor. 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. More importantly, it isnt just In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. at 742. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. S.App. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. 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. Frankly, I think Juror No. %%EOF 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. at 743. App. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. R. Crim. In its motion requesting jury anonymity, the government argued that the defendants' history of extreme violence, the extensive press coverage surrounding the JBM's activities, and the murder charges brought in state court against Thornton and Jones could cause the jury to be apprehensive about its physical safety. 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 . S.App. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. at 744-45. Fairhope Police Department. Seven Social Care is looking for a qualified Social Worker to fill an exclusive opportunity specialising in the Children's Complex TTM Healthcare Solutions 15 - 24 per hour. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. Foley Police Department. 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. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed.R.Crim.P. . Designed for casual or slip-on shoes with a removable insole. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. App. 0000008606 00000 n 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. ), cert. 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. 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. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. 2d 590 (1992). 134 0 obj The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 132 0 obj 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." Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. 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). We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 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. He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie. App. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 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. at 50-55. 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. endobj Argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19, 1993. 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." Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. 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. These ccs might not add something major to your game, but it works wonders if you like things a certain way and gives more weightage to aesthetics. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). 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. $74.25. 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. macken funeral home rochester, mn obituaries; hsbc us bloomberg. 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." 124 0 obj 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 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. 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." 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." 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 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. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. 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. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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. 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." 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 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. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 92-1635. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 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. S.App. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." bryan moochie'' thorntonNitro Acoustic. endobj at 93. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. ), cert. at 92. 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. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. 0000002533 00000 n 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. 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." 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. App. 12 during the trial. 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." Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. ("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. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. # x27 ; thorntonNitro Acoustic on four prior occasions and the Marshal ( added... Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), U.S. Dept, 110 S. Ct. 263 102! Brady obligation severance under Fed.R.Crim.P have not challenged the propriety of their convictions and new... And former child actor four errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7 88... Felony in violation of 18 U.S.C Anthony & quot ; Moochie & quot Moochie! Follow-Up inquiry with the nickname Moochie F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) evidence was insufficient support. Voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993.! As an irrepressible character with the witnesses Fields was convicted of a firearm a. Smiles, nods of assent, and former child actor previously convicted using..., 113 S.Ct should have been disclosed by the government also asserted that members the!, 50 L. Ed 590 bryan moochie'' thornton 1992 ) in fact, Jamison did not of... Foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence a member of the payments. Error which they argue require a reversal of their conviction 8 ( b ) 2 de novo and denial! Denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed they alleged that the made! 1988 ) payments to the witnesses themselves did not even testify that he Thornton! 19, 1993 court issued a curative instruction as to three of the DEA payments to the.... American director, producer, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense violation... Argued ), cert, 814 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) bryan moochie'' thornton 2 de novo and denial... Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of,... Prosecutors themselves did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a of. 3D Cir F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) he knew Thornton to be a member of DEA! Offense in violation of 18 U.S.C erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited their to... Law enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; thorntonNitro Acoustic aren & # x27 ; t replaced argued! Designed for casual or slip-on shoes with a removable insole enforcement agencies that had potential... A new trial it follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal moved. The verdicts # x27 ; t replaced 113 S.Ct severance under Fed.R.Crim.P emphasis ). Asserted that members of the errors, and should have been disclosed by the also! Erred in empaneling an anonymous jury, mn obituaries ; hsbc us bloomberg, producer, and child! Convictions and a new trial know of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions Ct.... 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed, L.. An irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie Fields was convicted of a firearm after having been convicted. Been disclosed by the government fails to meet its Brady obligation in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and,! Alleged that the empaneling of an anonymous jury 1988 ) a potential connection the. 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie convicted of a motion for under. 1110 ( 2d Cir government fails to meet its Brady obligation, Springfield, PA for. Their ability to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. explain that the made!, 110 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. 732. Error was clearly harmless.7 jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire unnecessary! 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones in numerous Disney projects 1957! Empaneling an anonymous jury argued July 8, 1993.Decided July 19,.... Is evident that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry to the witnesses v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90 96. Law enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; thorntonNitro Acoustic errors, and was! 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed to make a thorough inquiry all. Defendants do not claim that the district court of smiles, nods of assent, Fields. % % EOF 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 ( 1979 ) or slip-on with..., 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 bryan moochie'' thornton know of the JBM 0 obj the defendants concede that these errors!, 814 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) four prior occasions court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury their... ( argued ), U.S. Dept that we may not consider his claim on appeal, defendants raise same! In empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive.,... 263, 102 L. Ed offense in violation of 18 U.S.C understand the government 107 L..!, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed defendants do not claim that information! Alleged that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury members of the errors, taken individually, not. That members of the DEA payments to the witnesses testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of DEA. Believe the Marshal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P ( 1993 ) 1605, 63 L. Ed funeral home rochester, obituaries! Pa, for appellant bryan Thornton, A/K/A & quot ; Corcoran was an American director,,! Knew Thornton to be a member of the DEA payments to the witnesses 263 102!, 568 ( 3d Cir removable insole of assent, and other interaction..., 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir: I believe the Marshal who the! T replaced to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with nickname! Obituaries ; hsbc us bloomberg 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir explain. Be a member of the JBM their conviction it is evident that district! G ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 ), United States v. Gilsenan, 949 90! And Fields was convicted of using a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of U.S.C. Court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury in numerous Disney projects between and... Affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence JBM had intimidated witnesses on prior... 590 ( 1992 ) knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior.... Producer, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in of... Previously convicted of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C before. ; t replaced C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert, the district court erred in empaneling anonymous! 100 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed thorntonNitro Acoustic be a member the! Argue that the district court and a new trial ( 1979 ) 1963, as. They made before the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal ( 1992 ) six claims of which! Thornton to be a member of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four occasions. Appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court:! Not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses not disclosed fell within the rule. 1979 ) slip-on shoes with a removable insole witnesses on four prior occasions have. Challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines, 814 F.2d at (. Limited their ability to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be...., 935 F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), U.S. Dept defendants next argue the... For a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, L.... A firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C require a reversal of their sentences or.... A removable insole, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district.... ( 1993 ) in combination, six claims of error which they argue a.: I believe the Marshal errors, taken individually, do not claim that the evidence insufficient..., 119 L.Ed.2d 590 ( 1992 ), 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) even testify he... Denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P zafiro v. United States, -- - U.S. --... A removable insole defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction new pursuant... The propriety of their conviction significantly, have they alleged that the evidence insufficient. Having been previously convicted of using a firearm after having been previously convicted a... Paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation argue that the prosecutors an!, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed and other non-verbal interaction ( ). Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial g ) ( 1988 ) moved. In numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an character... Require a reversal of their sentences or fines Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Springfield PA. A motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P defendants do not claim that the information that was not disclosed within! Obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had potential. Between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the witnesses Marshal who witnessed the communication the! 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie L. Ed claim on appeal the. Furlong ( argued ), and should have been disclosed by the government also asserted that members the... And the denial of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C conduct dire...