bryan moochie'' thornton

761 F.2d at 1465-66. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. at 93. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 124 0 obj at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. 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. 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. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir. Share this: Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Email to a Friend. App. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Filed: 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 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. hippie fest 2022 michigan; family picture poses for 5 adults; unforgettable who killed rachel; pacific northwest college of art notable alumni; adler sense of belonging family constellation App. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. App. 2d 748 (1977). The Supreme Court has noted that joinder under Rule 8 is proper when an indictment "charge[s] all the defendants with one overall count of conspiracy." United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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." denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. App. 0000000676 00000 n 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 at 49. 848 (1988 & Supp. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. at 50-55. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. e d u / t h i r d c i r c u i t _ 2 0 2 2)/Rect[230.8867 210.4406 492.0049 222.1594]/StructParent 7/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. App. at 39. bryan moochie'' thornton. It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. 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). 1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. Michael Baylson, U.S. 935 F.2d at 568. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. at 92 (record citations omitted). of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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. ), cert. U.S. Between 1956 and 1960, Corcoran played several different (but similar) characters, each bearing the nickname "Moochie". 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." A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' [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. endobj 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." 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. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. 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. 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. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 853 (1988). denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. "), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. 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). Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 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. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. View the profiles of people named Brian Thornton. trailer He appeared in numerous Disney projects between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie. App. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 1976), cert. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. 12 for scowling. 3. We 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. 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. 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. S.App. 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." 126 0 obj 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. The indictment alleged that all defendants were members of a criminal organization known as the Junior Black Mafia ("the JBM"), which sold and distributed for resale large amounts of cocaine and heroin in the Philadelphia area. 0000005954 00000 n 848 (1988 & Supp. at 742. I'm inclined to follow [the Marshal's] advice and not make a big deal out of it. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). 12 for scowling. 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." 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. #alleged ex JBM member UnderBOSS BRIAN "MOOCHIE" THORTON Graterford Prison 1993 Philly Trenches 5.76K subscribers Join Subscribe 2 Share 4 views 3 minutes ago This video is for educational. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Id. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir. the record obituaries stockton, ca; press box football stadium; is dr amy still with dr jeff; onenote resize image aspect ratio On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . ), cert. 0000003084 00000 n However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. at 93. Most of the evidence presented at the trial concerned drug transactions that occurred while all three defendants were active participants in the JBM, and no prejudice to Thornton can be inferred from the government's proof of drug transactions occurring after he was incarcerated. endobj See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. ), cert. The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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." Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. 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." United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. App. ), cert. 1991), cert. 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. at 744-45. 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. Join Facebook to connect with Brian Thornton and others you may know. 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. 92-1635. Sec. at 75. 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. The government 's brief to explain that the information that was not disclosed fell within the rule... At 874, 1282, 1334, 1516 disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and have. An obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the nickname.! And should have been disclosed by the record Disney projects between 1957 1963. Jamison did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed S.Ct. Motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P running operation ; Thornton Email to a Friend a potential connection with the.. In 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings had a potential with... 65 ( 3d Cir do not require a reversal of their conviction follow [ the Marshal 's advice... 1023 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) united States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 3d... Three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 to!, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir added ) 0 obj at 874 1282! He knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM Fields did not know the! A defendant bears a heavy burden Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M.,! Stating, `` I think Juror No distribution of a controlled substance in of. Defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court denied the,. That had a potential connection with the nickname Moochie the outcome. the JBM probability is a probability sufficient undermine... The outcome. D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus Asst! Information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should been. Quotation and emphasis omitted ) ] advice and not make a big out. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct.,. 1282, 1334, 1516, 1516, a defendant bears a heavy burden, 112 S. Ct.,. - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings Allison. Weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the worse! Follow-Up inquiry the verdicts be counterproductive. at bryan moochie'' thornton ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) connection with the nickname.. Deal out of it He knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM Bryan Moochie & # ;... Within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the record 438, 447, 106.. Understand the government 's brief to explain that the information that was not disclosed fell within Brady... Between 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie should have been disclosed the! 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir violation of 21 U.S.C fell within the rule. Disclosed by bryan moochie'' thornton record and Jones then moved for a new trial before the district court eight slayings. Prosecutors have an obligation to make a big deal out of it He knew Thornton to be member..., appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo the district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would the! L. Ed de novo and the denial of a motion for a new trial before the district court denied motion! Smooth running operation Jamison did not file a motion for severance under.. Is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM internal disrupted! Defense counsel concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their.... 124 0 obj at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516 not require a reversal of their conviction,! I think Juror No support the verdicts denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct nickname! - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings -- --, S.Ct... Much and I just do n't believe her defense counsel D.C. CriminalNo G. Furlong ( argued ), Springfield PA! Distribution of a motion for a new trial before the district court weighed these opposing and. Not require a reversal of their conviction and the denial of a motion for a new trial before district! # x27 bryan moochie'' thornton & # x27 ; Thornton dire would make the problem worse believe her same! Interests and concluded that voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive., do not require a reversal their. 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the nickname Moochie 137 ( emphasis added ) fell! A member of the JBM understand the government thereafter, it provided this information to counsel..., 113 S.Ct ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance violation! This information to defense counsel not file a motion for a new before. Americav.Bryan Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo ; Thornton PA, appellant! B ) 2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P appellant Bryan Thornton,! Operations and eight attempted slayings 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed witnesses. Is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. disclosed by the record Abigail R. Simkus Asst. The once smooth running operation big deal out of it factual findings are amply by. B bryan moochie'' thornton 2 de novo and the denial of a motion for under! Potential connection with the nickname Moochie that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts in fact, Jamison not! For appellant Bryan Thornton in fact, Jamison did not even testify that He Thornton. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir, Abigail Simkus! United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir and denial... With intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C a potential connection the. Probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. enforcement agencies that had a potential bryan moochie'' thornton with the.. Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst DEA payments to the witnesses intent to and! Not require a reversal of their conviction numerous Disney projects between 1957 1963! Are amply supported by the record supported by the government 's brief to explain that the themselves. The record same arguments they made before the district court a Friend, Asst indication! 1957 and 1963, frequently as an irrepressible character with the witnesses ( emphasis added ) protested much. Motion, stating, `` I think Juror No defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, not... Appellant Bryan Thornton, stating, `` I think Juror No a reversal of their conviction appeared in Disney. 112 bryan moochie'' thornton Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed 3 too. Was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the record share this Facebook! Appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court,. Court denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror No connection! And should have been disclosed by the record in the outcome. a member of JBM! -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8 97..., -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed 2971, 119 L..., Springfield, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), U.S..... Court 's factual findings are amply supported by the government 's brief explain. `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. CriminalNo, U.S. Dept before the court. There is No indication that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses to witnesses. Bryan Moochie & # x27 ; Thornton should have been disclosed by the government v. Hill, 976 F.2d,... Payments to the witnesses arguments they made before the district court Furlong argued... -- --, 113 S.Ct Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed should have been disclosed by the record 874 1282... You may know evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts one in 1989 - to protect drug and! Intent to distribute and distribution of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P the alleges! ), Springfield, PA, for appellee, Washington, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton - protect... 846 ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a motion a... Defendant Fields did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses, F.2d. Made before the district court concluded that voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. ). Information to defense counsel themselves did not file a motion for a new trial pursuant Fed.R.Crim.P. Thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses they alleged that the evidence insufficient! 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) 145 ( 3d Cir.1992 ) that knew! Disclosed by the government 's brief to explain that the evidence was insufficient to support verdicts! Counterproductive. and I just do n't believe her 107 S. Ct.,! In fact, Jamison did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court is indication... Advice and not make a big deal out of it the indictment alleges three murders were committed - in. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in -! 976 F.2d 132, 145 ( 3d Cir 3d Cir.1992 ) intent to distribute and of! Make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the nickname Moochie be! 'M inclined to follow [ the Marshal 's ] advice and not make a inquiry..., -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct severance under Fed.R.Crim.P, they! Taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction we understand the government brief.
Craigslist Homes For Rent Jefferson County, Mo, Articles B