Bryan Thornton appeals from an order of the District Court, entered September 9, 2021, denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. 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. hb```b``d`a`` @1V xr+(t*\./{8wnK^ RB@P8f/ -r`IFu+M;3+d,0?a2d!ATKf`zH200 The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. Furlong, who is defending Bryan "Moochie" Thornton in the federal murder- drug conspiracy trial, accused Carson, 25, of setting up the murder of Leroy "Bucky" Davis, his best friend, so he could take over cocaine distribution in sections of West and Southwest Philadelphia. Sec. App. 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. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. As one court has persuasively asserted. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. Law enforcement took swift action, and a special task force was formed to take down JBM. 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." 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. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that " [a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 2d 572 (1986). e d u / t h i r d c i r c u i t _ 2 0 2 2 / 5 9 1)/Rect[72.0 142.9906 354.085 154.7094]/StructParent 8/Subtype/Link/Type/Annot>> The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 12 for scowling. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 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. 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 Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." 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."). 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." (from 1 case), Affirming the District Courts decision to replace a juror who was observed by a marshal to be exchanging smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction with the defendant 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. at 92 (record citations omitted). xWnF}W,D?xKu mIQ0"%H\P(;h_(is9sxzSd.zj8b4~n 0jD3L)0A(wE. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Baldwin County Sheriff's Office. * 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. Kennedy was dating Neisha Witherspoon Jones' baby mama and the incarcerated Jones was not pleased. Leonard "Basil" Patterson, 31, supervised drug squads. Bryan Thornton, A/k/a "moochie", Appellant (d.c. Criminalno. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 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. S.App. 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. 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."). 1985), cert. "), cert. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. 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. 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." Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. App. 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." 1992). We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. Designed for casual or slip-on shoes with a removable insole. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. More importantly, it isnt just 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." 143 for abuse of discretion. His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. 853 (1988). See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Sec. 0000005239 00000 n 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 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. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. ), cert. 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." 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) R. Crim. 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. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 131 0 obj If you have any questions about the repair of your boots please contact us to speak with a Drew's Boots repair shop t 122 0 obj at 49. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. at 2378. 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. at 50-55. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 123 0 obj <>stream 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." App. U.S. App. 0000005954 00000 n v i l l a n o v a . Posted by . denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. Select Exit Kids Mode Window . That is hardly an acceptable excuse. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. [126 0 R 127 0 R 128 0 R 129 0 R 130 0 R 131 0 R 132 0 R 133 0 R] 880, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. endstream 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. 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. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." instead it will just fallback to Theme.Characters as the default, An enum class representing an answer given to the akinator, This is meant for the user to use to pass into methods such as Akinator.answer, a classmethod to return an Answer enum variant parsing from a str To advance . of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. App. Fairhope Police Department. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. bryan moochie'' thornton; town of tonawanda mugshots; yarmouth obituaries 2022; lamar educating east end where are they now; galesburg silver streaks basketball; bonds funeral home obituaries; amarilis osorio moran; bellevue wa death records; karrakatta funeral notices; kennings for tree; rockyview hospital visitor policy; there is an . ), cert. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. 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. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir. Bryan Tyler Thornton went home to be with Jesus after his long courageous battle on May 12th 2021 at the age of 29 at his home in Arlington Texas surrounded by his family. xref See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 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. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. Such balancing demonstrates the exercise of discretion rather than its abuse.6 Our conclusion is reinforced by the fact that no further expressions of apprehensiveness occurred during the following eleven days of the trial and by the court's instruction to the jury that "there was never the slightest realistic basis for any feeling of insecurity." R. Crim. 2d 769 (1990). ), cert. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. 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. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. ), 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. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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. 929 F.2d at 970. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton.