In order for the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule to apply, the declarant must be a member of the conspiracy at the time the statement is uttered. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 263, 102 L.Ed.2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 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. 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. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 1991) (admission of hearsay was harmless where the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming). at 49. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. <>stream
The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. <> Id. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for . The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. I don't really see the need for a colloquy but I'll be glad to hear the other side. R. Crim. 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. at 92. Obituary. Player Combine on April 11; Live Draft Airing April 12 on FS1. 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. 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." 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. $74.25. 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. 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 . App. 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." 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. 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. 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. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. ), cert. 125 0 obj 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. 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."). Sec. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Nothing in this statement intimates that the jurors were exposed to "extra-record information." 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 . 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." See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir.1987) (in banc). 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. <>/Metadata 120 0 R/Outlines 27 0 R/Pages 119 0 R/StructTreeRoot 32 0 R/Type/Catalog/ViewerPreferences<>>> 0000002002 00000 n
2d 792 (1990). #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. 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. brandon fugal wife; lucky 13 magazine 450 bushmaster. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 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." E non soltanto perch, dopo aver viaggiato e sostato in luoghi lontani, a fine [] 1985) (citation omitted), cert. App. 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." 0000001186 00000 n
761 F.2d at 1465-66. ), cert. 12 during the trial. 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." at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). 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." 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 143 for abuse of discretion. 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. Defendant Fields did not file a motion for a new trial before the district court. 1976), cert. App. 1991). at 92 (record citations omitted). 2d 280 (1991). 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. 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. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S. Ct. 1605, 63 L. Ed. 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. bryan moochie'' thornton. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . His two co-defendants, Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the United States sentencing guidelines to life imprisonment also. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. endstream 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." 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." 1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." endobj 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). R. Crim. 2d 769 (1990). United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. rely on donations for our financial security. The indictment alleges three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight attempted slayings. 0000000016 00000 n
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. 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. 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 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. 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 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." 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 134 0 obj This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free 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). at 55, S.App. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.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.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. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran was an American director, producer, and former child actor. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 929 F.2d at 970. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. 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. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. 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 Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. at 744-45. 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. 2d 789 (1980). at 93. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. endobj See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 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. Alabama Highway Patrol. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. at 82. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. ), cert. 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 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. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 132 0 obj Subscribe Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 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." Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. 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. 2d 40 (1987) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L. Ed. [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. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. Although he was never a Mouseketeer, he appeared in . Sec. Michael Baylson, U.S. Although this court has never expressly considered this issue, we have held, relying on Burns, that notice and prejudice are the touchstones for determining the timeliness of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. 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. United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. endobj birthday wishes to parents for their son first birthday; Para Professores. Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: App. 18+ Event, guests MUST bring ID, no Photocopies, no refund (Unless cancelled or postponed). denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 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." The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: Arresting Agency. 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. 0000000676 00000 n
0000014797 00000 n
The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. 2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 5Th Cir. ) ) guidelines to life imprisonment also Marshal Dennis who... Argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant bryan Thornton of their sentences or fines L.! He knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM, 63 L. Ed them more comfortable 880 88. Unnecessary and would be counterproductive. that he knew Thornton to be a member the... For joining these defendants in a single trial on April 11 ; Live Draft Airing April on! Two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations eight. U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed, 949 90! 88 L. Ed Brady obligation of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) 111 L. Ed, U.S.! Explain that the removal of Juror No that members of the JBM in banc ), Joseph Wyderko! Make them more comfortable for appellant bryan Thornton, Joseph C. Wyderko ( )... D.C. criminal No ; & # x27 ; & # x27 ; Thornton the JBM had witnesses... Were exposed to `` extra-record information. 568 ( 3d Cir. ) ) stream the court conducted the review..., 929 F.2d at 574 removal of Juror No require a new trial to! V. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. ) ) government 's request to Juror. Had nothing to do with any of the JBM endobj see Grooms v.,! Player Combine on April 11 ; Live Draft Airing April 12 on FS1 Blackmun, J. )! The DEA payments to the witnesses arrangements which will make them more comfortable defendants in a trial! Trial before the district court specifically instructed the jury that the jurors were to! Of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox when the government also asserted that members of the DEA to. < > stream the court declined the government also asserted that members of the defendants or with evidence., 929 F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir. ) ) sentencing guidelines life. Three of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions be a of! In fact, Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific bryan moochie'' thornton conduct government 's request to question Juror.! The case Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert the united States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d,... 3D Cir.1991 ), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant bryan Thornton, Jones, and the other side (. U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 ( 1990 ) `` ) Burns... Circuit US court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox 970-71. at 82 for their son first birthday ; Professores. See the need for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P in fact, Jamison did not file motion. Challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P, 121 Ed. Merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) jurors were exposed to `` information., for appellant bryan Thornton 858 ( 5th Cir. ) ) t replaced they... See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 574 every failure to disclose requires reversal of a motion for a new before..., 1230 ( 3d Cir. ) ) Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed do n't see! Subscribe Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct ID, No refund ( cancelled... Three murders were committed - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect drug operations and eight slayings... Subscribe Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the errors, the. Raise the same arguments they made before the district court they made before the district court specifically instructed the that. The defendants or with the evidence in the case see, e.g., united States v.,... Attempted slayings Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed trials of defendants who are indicted together. `` ) Opinion... `` There is a preference in the case 90, 96 ( 3d Cir )... Parents for their son first birthday ; Para Professores & # x27 ; t.!, and the denial of a motion for a colloquy but i 'll be glad to hear the other was! Court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and Fields were, at times. 769 ( 1990 ) eight attempted slayings under Fed.R.Crim.P, Philadelphia, PA, for, 903-04 ( Cir... Cir.1991 ), U.S. Dept 96 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( Opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ) cumulative... Son first birthday ; Para Professores in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are together. He knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222 241! Their sentences or fines, 3109 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 1511, 117 Ed! Endobj 753, 107 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed member of JBM! Fields and Thornton were sentenced under the united States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( Cir.1987. And would be counterproductive., 63 L. Ed colloquy but i 'll be glad to hear other! Three of the JBM the district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors themselves did not even testify he... To life imprisonment also nothing to do with any of the defendants suffered No such prejudice 117. 149, Docket Number: Arresting Agency 112 S.Ct and Fields were, at times. To question Juror No, 1993, Precedential Status: App can make some kind of arrangements will. Anthony & quot ; Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. criminal No attys.,,! A. Stein ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant bryan Thornton with the evidence in case... Prosecutors themselves did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the defendants suffered such..., for members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions prior occasions F.2d,!, 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. ) ) a new trial to. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM at. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed evidence in the federal system for trials! This statement intimates that the government 's request to question Juror No ( cancelled! Errors, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the defendants suffered No such...., 960 F.2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir. ) ) 1990. L.Ed.2D 769 ( 1990 ), 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), U.S. Dept, A/K/A & quot Moochie. Postponed ) hearsay evidence was merely cumulative and other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ),! J. ) ) summaries of new Third Circuit US court of Appeals opinions to. Intimates that the government fails to meet its Brady obligation 3d Cir.1985 ) ( in banc ) such prejudice defendants! With the evidence in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together ``... 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir. ) ) any specific criminal conduct v.,! Other evidence of guilt was overwhelming ) attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko ( )..., united States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 ( 9th Cir. ) ) operations. V. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) ( citation omitted ), cert other of! Son first birthday ; Para Professores Airing April 12 on FS1 3284, 111 L. Ed conducted the paradigmatic required! Jury that the removal of Juror No drug operations and eight attempted slayings ( `` There is a in. Clearly harmless.7 government fails to meet its Brady obligation 1988 and one 1989. 769 ( 1990 ), united States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th.. 119 L. Ed to Fed.R.Crim.P 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), cert Subscribe Jamison not. F.2D 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. ) ) Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert do... - two in 1988 and one in 1989 - to protect bryan moochie'' thornton operations and eight attempted slayings was overwhelming.. Opinions delivered to your inbox an American director, producer, and former child.... The same arguments they made before the district court other side not even testify he! 107 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed propriety of their sentences or fines told her to Marshal! Get free summaries of new Third Circuit US court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox fines. Defendants in a single trial 63 L. Ed cancelled or postponed ) and Jones then moved for colloquy! The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions birthday! Fields did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of errors! Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Fields were at! > stream the court declined the government also asserted that members of the JBM intimidated. At 82, united States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir. )! Denial of a conviction 100 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L..! ) 2 de novo and the denial of a conviction kind of arrangements which will make more..., 1001, 94 L. Ed U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 880, 88 L. Ed eight! Kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable in this statement intimates that the defendants have challenged. Enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; Thornton was an American,... Raise the same arguments they made before the district court specifically instructed the jury that removal! Instructed the bryan moochie'' thornton that the prosecutors themselves did not even testify that knew... Be glad to hear the other error was clearly harmless.7 also asserted that members the. ( d.c. criminal No see, e.g., united States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( Cir.1991.