Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. 929 F.2d at 970. 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. 922(g)(1) (1988). I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. * See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. 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." 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. 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. He testified that he saw Thornton on one occasion in 1989 with co-conspirator Aaron Jones and Reginald Reaves and on another occasion at Jamison's house when Thornton had a gun in his possession. In order to warrant a reversal of the district court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for severance, a defendant has a heavy burden: "he must demonstrate clear and substantial prejudice resulting in a manifestly unfair trial." 91-00570-03). 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). 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." Sec. 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. 2-91-cr-00570-003. 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. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. You can explore additional available newsletters here. The court properly recognized that " '[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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. UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. App. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 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. 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." The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. rely on donations for our financial security. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. at 92. R. Crim. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. [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. Id. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. The U.S. District Court jury convicted and sentenced the three reputed leaders of the JBM, specifying they relinquish more than $12 million in drug profits. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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." Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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. at 50-55. ), cert. 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." 3 and declined to remove Juror No. (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 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." 12 for scowling. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). 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.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. 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. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. 914 F.2d at 944. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 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. 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." Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. Frankly, I think Juror No. United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. 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."). Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 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. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 1978), cert. The district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 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. 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. Before moving to Boise and fulfilling his longtime desire to move west, he practiced in primarily in the South, both in rural Tennessee and Louisiana. Michael Baylson, U.S. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. App. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. 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. 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 This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. 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." 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. Get this Philadelphia Daily News page for free from Tuesday, April 7, 1992 about almost monthly runs to Florida for purchases by Kitty Caparella Daily News Staff Writer Two witnesses said . 91-00570-03).UNITED STATES of Americav.Aaron JONES, a/k/a "A", "J", Appellant (D.C. Criminal No.91-00570-01).UNITED STATES of Americav.Bernard FIELDS, a/k/a "Quadir", "Q", Appellant (D.C.Criminal No. 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. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: at 75. Id. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 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. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. at 39. denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S.Ct. 1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen [t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir. 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." 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. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 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. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. 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. 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. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. 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. 2d 789 (1980). at 93. 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. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. Cart Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. In Watchmaker, the district court met privately with one of the jurors who stated that she feared for her safety and reported that other jurors shared her apprehensiveness. 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. Sec. United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 145 (3d Cir.1992). Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 1985), cert. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. Id. Nashville, TN. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 2d 748 (1977). Bryan has been highly . Precedential, Citations: 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. 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 district court in this case concluded that Thornton and Jones were both leaders of the JBM and that severance was inappropriate because the defendants had failed to demonstrate that joinder would be prejudicial.5. . 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. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). 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. at 742. 922(g) (1) (1988). at 92 (record citations omitted). App. R. Crim. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 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. What does your number mean? The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 1992). 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. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. As one court has persuasively asserted. 4/21/92 Tr. ", 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. 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. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 12 during the trial. at 1683. 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. 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. 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. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 725, 731, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required.").