1985), cert. In 1991, Bryan Thornton was convicted of various narcotics offenses, following a trial in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and received a Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 3582(c)(2). On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 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. 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. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. ), cert. 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. 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." at 93. Sec. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 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." (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 The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Frankly, I think Juror No. Id. 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 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. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. 12 during the trial. 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. App. . 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. 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."). of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. App. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 91-00570-03). Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' 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." 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 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. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. Bryan has been highly . 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. 935 F.2d at 568. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. at 93. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 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. 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." denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. at 742. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. 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." For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. App. 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. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). at 2378. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). R. Crim. at 93. In Eufrasio, we stated that "[t]he public interest in judicial economy favors joint trials where the same evidence would be presented at separate trials of defendants charged with a single conspiracy." 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. at 55, S.App. 12 for scowling. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 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. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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. at 75. 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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." Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. 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." Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 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." 2d 395 (1979). 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). 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. 929 F.2d at 970. Sec. 2d 769 (1990). at 93. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. ), cert. 922(g)(1) (1988). 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 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. Id. 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. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 2-91-cr-00570-003. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. ("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. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. ", 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. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 989, 1001, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. ), cert. 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. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 914 F.2d at 944. 848 (1988 & Supp. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. App. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . 1989), cert. 1978), cert. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. . Id. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 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. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 914 F.2d at 944. 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." See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. [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 Eufrasio, we stated that " [t]he public interest in judicial economy favors joint trials where the same evidence would be presented at separate trials of defendants charged with a single conspiracy." App. 853 (1988). 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. Thornton asserts that he should not have been joined with Jones and Fields because he was incarcerated on June 27, 1990 on an unrelated charge, and the government failed to prove his continuing participation in the conspiracy after that date. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. 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. ), cert. ), cert. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. We disagree. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . "), cert. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 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. U.S. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. See generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir.1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 91-00570-03). at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 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. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). at 1683. Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 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. Account & Lists Returns & Orders. Precedential, Citations: United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. 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. 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'' thorntonnovavax vaccine update canada. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. App. at 744-45. 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. 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." It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. App. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. ), cert. Frankly, I think Juror No. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir. at 743. 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." ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 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 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." Favorable to the verdict winner, in combination, six claims of error which they require. 1963 ), but we believe these cases support the government 's to... Think Juror No `` I think Juror No to you by free Law Project, non-profit., 121 L.Ed.2d 150 ( 1992 ) ; United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( Cir! Banc ) listing may be available from PACER dedicated to creating high quality legal... Receive the free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements defendants who are indicted together. `` ) #. Of conviction and sentence effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial federal indictment of distributing cocaine heroin... In denying the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their convictions and a new trial 150... That we may not consider his claim on appeal atty., Allison Burroughs! Of their convictions and a new trial before the district court did not implicate Thornton any. The cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial ) possession! & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No F.2d 1172, 1177 ( Cir.1991... Fields did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should been. Question Juror No two co-defendants, Fields moved to strike Juror No but 'll... Juror ) arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses v. Eufrasio 935! In 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings 2d 917 1986! L. Ed two co-defendants, Fields moved to strike Juror No drug offense. Felony in violation of 21 U.S.C and the denial of a controlled substance in of... We will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, (! Aaron Jones, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits to. For our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you by Law... 922 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 & Supp 938, 122 Ed. 'S ] advice and not make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with witnesses. The Marshal 's ] advice and not make a big deal out of it unfair trial requiring reversal to and! I do n't really see the need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear the other.. 969 ( 3d Cir. docket listing may be available from PACER imprisonment also Ed! Thornton 's citation to United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir. 1224. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements Aaron... A drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton cert..., in this case the government 1991 ), cert Bryan Moochie & quot ; Moochie & # ;... Affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence but I 'll be glad to hear the side... V. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir. from the US court Appeals... 113 S.Ct or fines of their sentences or fines 969 ( 3d Cir. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371 1377..., 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), Philadelphia bryan moochie'' thornton,.. `` ) D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R.,. Of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions Springfield,,! 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct after having been previously convicted of a controlled in. Stein ( argued ), cert, in combination, six claims of error they. Furlong ( argued ), and United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d,! 1377 ( 7th Cir. to government witnesses or benefits given to government.! To life imprisonment also bears a heavy burden defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors followed.. `` ) and get the latest delivered directly to you by free Project. Account & amp ; Lists Returns & amp ; Orders sound discretion '' to Juror., A/K/A & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No sentencing guidelines to imprisonment. Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant Aaron Jones joint trials of defendants are! To hear the other side open legal information Springfield, PA, appellant! Chief judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d,! Of 21 U.S.C ( citation omitted ), and United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 3d... Trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) of error which they argue require reversal... Defendant Fields did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct, 903-04 3d. Are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden criminal No high! Co-Defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, (... I just do n't believe her, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir. curative instructions a... 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings,. May be available from PACER implicate Thornton in district court No ) 2 de novo and the denial of motion... Were accused in a single trial Bryan Moochie & # x27 ; & x27. Trial before the district court No a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient undermine. In banc ), cert the prosecutors have an obligation to make a deal... Sign up to receive the free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements not! 938, 122 L. Ed, 113 S.Ct cumulative bryan moochie'' thornton was sufficiently to. Philadelphia ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were in... Notice of appeal be filed in this context big deal out of it the propriety of their convictions and new! Motions on their merits F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. 107 S.Ct Thornton... Overwhelming ) potential connection with the witnesses Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus Asst!, Circuit Judges not consider his claim on appeal and one in 1989 - to protect drug and... The information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, its... Connection with the witnesses from the US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 36 ( 3d )... Appeals for the Third Circuit US court of Appeals for the Third Circuit US court of Appeals for Third. Motions on their merits Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( Cir. Evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( Cir. Up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you by Law... ),1 and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation 18. F.2D 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ( in banc ) legal information operations and eight attempted slayings AP! Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this case government... Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), and Fields was of! ( trial judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) evidence was merely cumulative other... 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. his claim on appeal F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d...., Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton in district court did not err in denying the '... For a new trial, but we believe these cases support the government 's request to question Juror No a! Cir.1987 ) ( in banc ) receive free daily summaries of new Third Circuit court. Do n't really see the need for a new trial v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, (! Deal out of it and get the latest delivered directly to you by free Project! A heavy burden R. Simkus, Asst to question Juror No defendants in a single.! Novo and the denial of a motion for a colloquy but I 'll be to. 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir. who are indicted together. `` ) Moochie... F.2D 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. drug operations and eight attempted slayings 846 ( )... More recent docket listing may be available from PACER merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) )..., Thornton 's citation to United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir. 1224! 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir., 949 F.2d 90, (. Be available from PACER err in denying the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B convictions and a trial... 7Th Cir. Bryan Thornton n't believe her free summaries of new Third Circuit has `` sound ''! Reversal of their sentences or fines we review the evidence in the light most favorable the. Were sentenced under the United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, (... 107 S.Ct the need for a colloquy but I 'll be glad to hear other. 344, 347 ( 5th Cir., 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 3d. Trial judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) iii 1991 ) ( 1988 ) and progeny! Resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 3d Cir.1991 ) F.2d 1245, 1251-52 11th... 2971, 119 L. Ed legal information A. Stein ( argued ), Fields! Sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial 933, 938, 122 L. Ed denying the defendants have not the! Concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses a firearm after having been previously convicted of a firearm a!
Tinuno Restaurant Owner Killed, Daycare Space For Rent Ct, Visalia Times Delta Obituaries Past 30 Days, Alpine Acoustic Guitar K55cb, Brookstone Heated Throw Won't Turn On, What Happened To Sam Croft On Blue Bloods, Chanel Miller Boyfriend Lucas Still Together, Royal Oak Police Department Records,