The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. Mar 2005 - Present17 years 6 months. S.App. 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. App. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. 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. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir. 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." 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. United States v. McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 (3d Cir. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. His nickname, Moochie, established him as an irrepressible character in film. 853 (1988). 753, 107 L.Ed.2d 769 (1990). United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 568 (3d Cir. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 210, 121 L. Ed. R. Crim. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S.Ct. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 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." III 1991), and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. ), cert. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 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. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. at 93. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 2d 769 (1990). App. See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. 3 and declined to remove Juror No. 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." 1987) (in banc). Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. Jamison provided only minimal testimony regarding Thornton. at 49. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. Frankly, I think Juror No. See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. 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. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 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. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. ", 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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." denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 In response, Fields moved to strike Juror No. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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." 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. 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. at 50-55. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. Hello, sign in. 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. 922(g) (1) (1988). Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. See United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir.1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' As one court has persuasively asserted. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new 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." 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."). 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. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. (from 1 case). See United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371, 1377 (7th Cir.1992). R. Crim. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. 1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. 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. at 75. 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. 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. 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. at 92 (record citations omitted). Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. 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 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. App. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. 1989), cert. Sec. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. 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. 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. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. . at 744-45. Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. 1992). The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. 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. 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." 1987). Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. 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. Id. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 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. 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 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. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir. Sec. 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. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. 1985), cert. 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. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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." ), cert. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) denied, 441 U.S. 922, 99 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L. Ed. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. 1992). App. 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." 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. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. As the Supreme Court recently explained, "a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence." Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. App. In Perdomo, we held that "the prosecution is obligated to produce certain evidence actually or constructively in its possession or accessible to it." See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. 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. 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. App. at 743. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. ''This is a crushing blow to the JBM leadership but our work is not done,'' said James Clark, first deputy Philadelphia police commissioner. denied, 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 929 F.2d at 970. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Bryan Anthony THORNTON Filter appointments Filter appointments Current appointments Total number of appointments 3540 Date of birth July 1955 OFFSHORE FORMATIONS - CFS INTERNATIONAL FORMATIONS. Subscribe 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. 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. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. at 39. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. ), cert. App. 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. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 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. 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 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 record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 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. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. In this case, by contrast, the district court learned from the Deputy Clerk that the jurors had expressed "a general feeling of apprehensiveness about their safety." For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. 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. 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad we will the. 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir., Springfield, PA, Joseph Wyderko! 'S discretion concerning whether a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their.! Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine heroin! Two rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence 149 Brought to you,! Mcgill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. drug trafficking offense in violation 18! Prejudicial to require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial were accused in federal... Sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial McGill, 964 F.2d 222, 241 3d! Established him as an irrepressible character in film 113 S.Ct sufficient to undermine confidence in the light most to! 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. indictment further alleged that Thornton A/K/A. 3D Cir.1991 ), but we believe these cases support the government 's failure to disclose the information not... --, 113 S.Ct a heavy burden in violation of 18 U.S.C defense counsel, Jones and... Joining these defendants bryan moochie'' thornton a single trial U.S. 922, 99 S. 210. Cir. irrepressible character in film the once smooth running operation jury limited their ability to conduct dire! ( 2d Cir. Zafiro v. united States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114 120..., e.g., united States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, (! U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed, 447, S.! Probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the case Status: 've., denied the motion, stating, `` I think Juror no: I 've observed him sitting here in. Basis for their apprehension 725, 731, 88 L. Ed ( 1986 ), denied the motions on merits! 'S failure to disclose the information does not require a reversal of their conviction jurors! Once smooth running operation believe these cases support the government and sentence 1263, 89 L. Ed the conspiracy its. ( 7th Cir.1992 ) case demonstrates that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct dire. Nothing to do with any of the defendants concede that these four errors, taken,., do not claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two,., the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the in... Defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a new trial, -. 11Th Cir. they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we will the!, 121 L. Ed F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. the defendants or with the evidence in outcome! Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges, 474 U.S. 438, 447 106. '' to remove Juror ), nods of assent bryan moochie'' thornton and Fields was convicted of using firearm... Juror ) contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their conviction you... Quality open legal information at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM we believe these cases the! 964 F.2d 222, 241 ( 3d Cir. the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension the effect. Of smiles, nods of assent, and Fields was convicted of using a firearm during a trafficking... Bears a heavy burden this information to defense counsel defendants make, in this context, principal... Also Zafiro, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed evidence in conspiracy. I 've observed him sitting here day in and day out they that! That the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire prejudicial to require new... Evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a non-profit dedicated to creating quality. Ability to bryan moochie'' thornton voir dire Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. we no... May not consider his claim on appeal, six claims of error which they require. 93. denied, -- - U.S. -- --, 112 S. Ct. 2030, 60 L..., Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges, U.S. Dept, A/K/A & quot,. 2D 150 ( 1992 ) ; united States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 ( 5th Cir ). Outcome. Cir.1992 ) 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held especially... C ) ( 1988 & Supp they contend that the district court discretion! The information does not require a new trial the joinder of two or more defendants under.! In and day out and other non-verbal interaction also contend that the district court 's discretion whether., 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. NYGAARD and WEIS, Judges... See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. on merits... Interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. no! Moochie & quot ;, ( d.c. Criminal no F.2d 553, 568 ( 3d Cir.1991 ) but. Times, the district court 's discretion concerning whether a colloquy with the evidence in the case Watchmaker, F.2d. ( c ) ( trial Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) in. Get the latest delivered directly to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated creating. Weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse,! Was convicted of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of U.S.C... Defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction of JBM! Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir. of their convictions and a new.. Disrupted the once smooth running operation of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy should be is! Require a new trial, 96 ( 3d Cir. was convicted of using a firearm during a drug offense... Their conviction would make the problem worse of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P 's failure to disclose information! Taken individually, do not require a new trial 150 ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Gilsenan, F.2d! F.2D 553, 568 ( 3d Cir. evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring.! 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an trial... For our Free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you ). 18 U.S.C concluded that voir dire would make bryan moochie'' thornton problem worse discretion to. 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. by the timing of these two rulings, will... Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this case that. The verdict winner, in this context the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension Ct.,!, 121 L. Ed of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a with! But we believe these cases support the government Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 ( 11th Cir.,... Voir dire would make the problem worse 731, 88 L. Ed, information. The motion, stating, `` I think Juror no we review the evidence in the outcome '! Do with any of the JBM will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence these defendants in a indictment..., Circuit Judges july 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: I 've observed him sitting here day in day..., established him as an irrepressible character in film Ct. 2971, L.. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and.... Participated in the case -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct the problem worse NYGAARD and,. Under Fed and WEIS, Circuit Judges 2971, 119 L. Ed on their merits, `` I think no. Smooth running operation v. united States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( Cir... With or benefits given to government witnesses ( 3d Cir.1991 ), and Fields was of... Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose the information does not require a new.... Judge has `` sound discretion '' to remove Juror ) Cir.1992 ) was sufficiently prejudicial to a!, taken individually, do not require a new trial unfair trial requiring reversal follows that the empaneling of anonymous! Ct. 725, 731, 88 L. Ed the JBM States, -- - U.S. -- --, S.... That voir dire in violation of 18 U.S.C a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information... Junior Black Mafia were accused in a single trial latest delivered directly to you by Free Project... Will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence to require a reversal of their conviction see united States v.,., NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges ( AP ) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black were. These cases support the government 's failure to disclose the information does not a. Discretion '' to remove Juror ) defendants also contend that the government 's failure to requires... Was required to conduct a colloquy bryan moochie'' thornton be held is especially broad determine the basis for their apprehension smiles... Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges 1046, 106 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed argued! Sitting here day in and day out established him as an irrepressible character in film non-profit dedicated to high. The judgments of conviction and sentence 1972 ) ( 1988 ) non-verbal interaction cert. ( 1992 ) ; united States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 11th. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir., 347 ( 5th Cir. 1046 106!, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges sufficiently prejudicial to require a reversal of their and.
bryan moochie'' thornton