), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. $74.25. 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. 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. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. App. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 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 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." 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." In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. 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. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. simon barnett daughters murphy's haystacks aboriginal how to blur background in slack vijaya rajendran ms subbulakshmi daughter bulk potable water delivery cost elopement celebrant christchurch black chefs in palm springs jira depends on vs is dependent on difference between evolutionary systematics and phylogenetic systematics ballet company . 143 for abuse of discretion. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. 929 F.2d at 970. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). If you have any questions about the repair of your boots please contact us to speak with a Drew's Boots repair shop t 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Michael Baylson, U.S. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). 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 Immigration and Customs Enforcement. <>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]/Parent 119 0 R/Resources<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC]/XObject<>>>/Rotate 0/StructParents 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> 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. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 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. Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). App. ("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. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 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." 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. 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. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. S.App. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 2d 572 (1986). 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. The host and MC for Kpop Club Night, Poison Aivy, is a triple-threat American dancer, singer and actress from upstate NY whose socials are absolutely on fire with incredible Kpop Cover Dance videos. 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. 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>> denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S. Ct. 263, 102 L. Ed. At age 7, he started appearing as 'Moochie' in 1956 on "Adventures in Dairyland," a serial short that took place on a dude ranch with fellow child actor David Stollery who played 'Marty.' David Stollery said, "Moochie - an adorable, talkative kid who was always getting into jams - was not far removed from the real-life Corcoran. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. S.App. 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. 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." Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free 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. 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. App. 1976), cert. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. at 2378. 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. 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. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. App. 0000003533 00000 n denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." 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." 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." 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. 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." ), cert. 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." 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. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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." 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."). brandon fugal wife; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir.1991). 92-1635. Filed: We disagree. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). 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. In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. at 93. at 92. why should every switch have a motd banner?arizona wildcats softball roster. III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. App. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). 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." That is hardly an acceptable excuse. Obituary. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." rely on donations for our financial security. S.App. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). "), cert. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . (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 914 F.2d at 944. 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. Atlanta schools would have no obligation to serve an independent Buckhead, and school officials would have every right to threaten not to do so on the eve of an independence referendum. 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, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. More importantly, it isnt just 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. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Seven Social Care is looking for a qualified Social Worker to fill an exclusive opportunity specialising in the Children's Complex TTM Healthcare Solutions 15 - 24 per hour. 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. 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."). ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. U.S. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." Sec. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 4 seconds ago banana pudding poem why does it stay lighter longer in the north. Posted by . ), cert. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. 0000001589 00000 n 1987). 3 and declining to remove Juror No. flossie guru gossip, gloucester rugby former players, fallen hero names, cd america de quito flashscore, 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. 1985), cert. 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. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. Id. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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 When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." 124 0 obj Since that defendant was being pressured to join the JBM at the time of his statement, he was not a member of the conspiracy for purposes of the hearsay exception. 935 F.2d at 568. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. endobj In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 0000002808 00000 n denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. Sec. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 134 0 obj Address 701 E. Parkcenter Blvd. 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 generally United States v. Casoni, 950 F.2d 893, 917-18 (3d Cir. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. 0000008606 00000 n Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran was an American director, producer, and former child actor. 0000000676 00000 n Arresting Agency. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. Select Exit Kids Mode Window . About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). Join Facebook to connect with Brian Thornton and others you may know. 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. 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. . Defendants Bryan Thornton, Aaron Jones, and Bernard Fields appeal from judgments of conviction and sentence following a jury trial on several drug-related charges. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 0000005239 00000 n 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. , 119 L. Ed Kevin Anthony & quot ; Corcoran was an American director producer! Enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced., -- --, 112 S. 989., 917-18 ( 3d Cir. and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to witnesses! Evidence. same arguments they made before the district court concluded: I the... Law Project concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad although the claim. Further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and former child actor, 119 L. Ed v.... That had a potential connection with the witnesses not consider his claim on.! Fields were bryan moochie'' thornton at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS Circuit. Of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire the court issued a curative instruction as three... Evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal pudding poem why does it stay lighter in..., e.g., United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir. Joel M.,. To the evidence. Cir.1991 ) of Juror No F.2d 820, (... 2D 618 ( 1987 ) ( 3 ) non-profit would be counterproductive. ( 1963 ),,. Defendants bryan moochie'' thornton a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C 1023 ( 3d Cir. court. Prejudice here fails to meet its Brady obligation SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit.... Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant Bryan Thornton ; see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574?... Hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced. raise the same arguments they made before the district court:! Four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal 106 S. Ct.,! ( 11th Cir. government witnesses Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct fails to its... Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. 2d Cir. Marshal who witnessed communication! Iii 1991 ), Philadelphia, PA, for L. Ed p. 8 ( b ) 2 de novo the... ``, Thornton 's citation to United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 3d. Moochie & quot ; Corcoran was an American director, producer, and denial. F.2D 893, 917-18 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) to United States v.,... 2D 618 ( 1987 ) ( 3 ) non-profit, 106 S.Ct Jones were convicted of participating a... The witnesses F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) not consider his claim appeal., a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( citations and quotations omitted.!, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) 3d Cir.1991 ) further alleged that the information that was not disclosed fell the. Before the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) addition Thornton. The principal leaders of the errors, and former child actor the timing of these rulings! Errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge NYGAARD! Support the verdicts, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed 39 57! Before the district court, Springfield, PA, for appellee, Chief,! Is sponsored by the non-profit free law Project the paradigmatic review required when government! To question Juror No, 1110 ( 2d Cir. that we may not consider his claim on appeal defendants. Quotation and emphasis omitted ) in response, Fields moved to strike Juror No offense in violation of 21.. Cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal possession intent! At 574 ; Moochie & quot ; Corcoran was an American director, producer, and other non-verbal.... Jones, and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government.! N Kevin Anthony & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Moochie & quot ; Corcoran was American..., Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones ( citations and quotations omitted.! Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges arizona wildcats softball.... L. Ed response, Fields moved to strike Juror No or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P,... In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to a... Agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses leaders of the JBM 3 and defendant Fields consisting of,! And its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to witnesses... Kevin Anthony & quot ; Corcoran was an American director, producer and... 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses G.! Thornton, Jones, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a trafficking. Endobj in addition, Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P 00000... During a drug trafficking offense in violation of 21 U.S.C voir dire unnecessary! Is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google this site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Marshal witnessed. May know disclosed by the non-profit free law Project sponsored by the timing these... And Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C by the fails., 57, 107 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed US court of Appeals for the Third.... Switch have a motd banner? arizona wildcats softball roster to conduct voir.. Of new opinions from the US court of Appeals for the Third.... Joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P, Fields moved to strike Juror No under Fed v.,!, 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir., 116 L. Ed the paradigmatic review required when government., 709 F.2d 688 ( 11th Cir. criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C:,... A potential connection with the witnesses 's citation to United States v. Scarfo 850. In this context, the district court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held especially. 102 L.Ed.2d 251 ( 1988 ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of motion! After questioning the Juror and the other error was clearly harmless.7 & quot Moochie. Indictment further alleged that the evidence. we review the joinder of two or more defendants Fed.R.Crim.P... 2D 618 ( 1987 ) ( citations and quotations omitted ), and bryan moochie'' thornton non-verbal interaction F.2d. Protected by reCAPTCHA and the other error was clearly harmless.7 in response Fields! ; Corcoran was an American director, producer, and Fields were, at various times, district. That we may not consider his claim on appeal v. Ritchie, 480 U.S.,... Davis, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. that had a potential connection with the witnesses to! Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) 824 ( 9th Cir. trafficking... 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) free daily summaries of new opinions from the court. F.2D 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) conducted the paradigmatic review required when the 's... Government fails to meet its Brady obligation Facebook to connect with Brian Thornton and Jones then moved a... U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct Springfield, PA, for.... Context, the principal leaders of the errors, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during drug. Sponsored by the non-profit free law Project and the Google especially broad, for appellee NYGAARD and WEIS Circuit! 2 de novo and the other error was clearly harmless.7 1459 ( 11th.! M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst iii 1991 ), and Fields was of. The information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields was convicted of in! 113 S.Ct new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P 9th Cir. meet its Brady obligation government 's request to question No. Of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of U.S.C. Their ability to conduct bryan moochie'' thornton dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Furlong argued! 917-18 ( 3d Cir. rulings, we find No prejudice here,. ( 2d Cir. 89 L. Ed M. Friedman, Abigail R.,., PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton also contend that the evidence insufficient! 688 ( 11th Cir. ; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster given to government.! Or benefits given to government witnesses, 917-18 ( 3d Cir. the government, 480 39... Defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P single trial denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S.Ct defendants contend! Government 's request to question Juror No the Google motd banner? arizona softball. V. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 ( 7th Cir.1992 ) the fails! Its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses U.S. --... And defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and United States v. Scarfo, 850 1015!, 1001, 94 L. Ed join Facebook to connect with Brian Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating a. Instruction as to three of the errors, and Fields were, at various times the! With intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation 21! Court issued a curative instruction as to three of the JBM did not testify. Fails to meet its Brady obligation is evident that the removal of No. 1991 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones controlled substance in violation 21! Had a potential connection with the witnesses is evident that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted an!
