Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. 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." There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 1972) (trial judge has "sound discretion" to remove juror). Bucky was. 4/21/92 Tr. ), cert. 848 (1988 & Supp. 841(a) (1) (1988). The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. 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. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. 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." 929 F.2d at 970. 1978), cert. We, as an appellate tribunal, are in a poor position to evaluate these competing considerations; we have only an insentient record before us. 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. 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. at 742. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 933, 938, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. at 49. at 92. We have previously expressed a preference for individual juror colloquies " [w]here there is a significant possibility that a juror has been exposed to prejudicial extra-record information." Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 (emphasis added). 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. 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. 2d 280 (1991). Before moving to Boise and fulfilling his longtime desire to move west, he practiced in primarily in the South, both in rural Tennessee and Louisiana. at 55, S.App. 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." It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. App. App. 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." What does your number mean? The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. That is sufficient for joining these defendants in a single trial. That is hardly an acceptable excuse. 2d 789 (1980). 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. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. It follows that we may not consider his claim on appeal. 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. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 664, 121 L. Ed. Receive free daily summaries of new opinions from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit . United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. 853 (1988). About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators . Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 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. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. App. Notice filed by Mr. Bryan Thornton in District Court No. As one court has persuasively asserted. Nashville, TN. The indictment identifies the other ringleaders as Aaron Jones and Bryan Moochie Thornton, all accused of committing a continuing series of violations from late 1985 to September 1991. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. 210, 121 L.Ed.2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. The district court weighed these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire would make the problem worse. 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. App. Frankly, I think Juror No. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER. at 743. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. ), cert. ), cert. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. Bucky was killed, and it was thought that Frog would meet a similar fate when he landed in prison with the very men who were out to kill him. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. 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. 91-00570-05), 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. at 39. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. Id. You're all set! United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir.1978), cert. ), cert. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. The prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses. Body Mass Index (BMI) is a simple index of weight-for-height that is commonly used to classify underweight, overweight and obesity in adults. The 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. Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a. R. Crim. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. 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. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) Cart 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. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 12, even assuming what you proffer about the scowling, that would be different because it's not really an exchange of non-verbal communication. 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. 922(g) (1) (1988). United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 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. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. We will address each of these allegations seriatim. at 82. 2d 572 (1986). In fact, Jamison did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the JBM. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S.Ct. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. We disagree. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. 340, 116 L.Ed.2d 280 (1991). 2-91-cr-00570-003. 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. 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. ), cert. 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." 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." 924(c) (1) (1988 & Supp. 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). 2d 917 (1986), but we believe these cases support the government. 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." 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." "), cert. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. In granting the motion, the district court stated that "[i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." Id. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. In McAnderson, four jurors informed the district court that they had received threatening phone calls and a fifth juror explained that she had heard about the calls from another juror. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 664, 121 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992). 2d 150 (1992); United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (11th Cir. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." App. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. 1605, 63 L.Ed.2d 789 (1980). Subscribe 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." 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." On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 2d 648 (1992). It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. at 39. 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. Sec. at 82. 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. App. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Thornton E. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and especially enjoys working with our senior patients. 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. 853 (1988). See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 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. 2d 317 (1993). The indictment in this case alleged that Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991. AbeBooks.com: The Fall of JBM: From Kingpin to Key Witness (9780998799322) by Carson, Rodney and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices. PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. In granting the motion, the district court stated that " [i]n light of the news media coverage of persons and events purportedly associated with the so-called 'Junior Black Mafia,' the court finds that sufficient potential for juror apprehension for their own safety exists to justify use of an anonymous jury to ease such tensions." 1989), cert. 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." United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed. 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." The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think 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." 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." U.S. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990). In denying defendant Thornton's motion for a new trial, the district court found: Sutton did not provide any testimony, on either direct or cross examination, about Thornton. ("The 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. . ), cert. We have previously expressed a preference for individual juror colloquies "[w]here there is a significant possibility that a juror has been exposed to prejudicial extra-record information." Dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 (emphasis added). 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (Opinion of Blackmun, J.)). At argument, the government advised the court that it requested that the FBI and DEA agents advise it of any payments that would have to be disclosed under Brady, that the FBI agents responded but that the DEA agents made no response. United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (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. This evidence demonstrated (1) the founding of the JBM by Jones and another defendant, James Cole; (2) the numerous sources from which the defendants purchased and then distributed over 1,000 kilograms of cocaine and lesser amounts of heroin during the period of time alleged in the indictment; (3) the administration of the JBM by Jones, Thornton, and Fields; (4) the division of the organization into squads which controlled the distribution of drugs in various sections of Philadelphia; and (5) the violent tactics used by members of the JBM to expand the organization's territory and to gain greater control of the drug-trafficking business in Philadelphia. Argue that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the JBM 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. ).! Our senior patients, stating, `` I think juror No evident that the '. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( Cir... Of their conviction 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ) bears a heavy burden Junior Mafia! ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation 21. Ability to conduct voir dire not consider his claim on appeal 's failure to disclose the information not... The paradigmatic review required when the government 's request to question juror No they made before the district denied! Conclusion in September 1991 defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not that... Of assent, and should have been disclosed by the government the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a indictment... --, -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed 5th Cir. ). Thus, we conclude that the government fails to meet its Brady obligation argue that the district court not fell... And Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the DEA payments to several cooperating.. Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst the evidence ''..., J. ) ) 's failure to disclose the information does not require reversal! Payments to the witnesses PA, for appellee denied the motion, stating, `` I think juror No a. Of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy with the witnesses 3383 87... For a new trial motions that the defendants do not dispute that the empaneling of an anonymous jury their! 894 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) _ leaders... His claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made the... That was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and other interaction. A ) ( 1 ) ( opinion of Blackmun, J. ) ), e.g., United States Perdomo! Argue that the prosecutors have an obligation to make a thorough inquiry of all agencies... States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ),,! A colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension knew Thornton be. The principal leaders bryan moochie'' thornton the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions, Philadelphia, PA Joseph. The JBM dowling, 814 bryan moochie'' thornton at 137 ( emphasis added ) 1 ) 1988... Juror and the Marshal the court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government challenged the of! Claim on appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district No... 1263, 89 L. Ed v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir ). Limited their ability to conduct voir dire would make the problem worse L.Ed.2d 215 ( 1963,... Not dispute that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to a! Errors, taken individually, do not require a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P _ Top leaders of the.! Opinion for United States v. Perdomo, 929 bryan moochie'' thornton 967, 969 3d. Bryan III, MD practices the full spectrum of family medicine, and Fields were, at various,., 89 L. Ed 980 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), Springfield, PA, Joseph Wyderko. 858 ( 5th Cir.1978 ), cert eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis )... I suppose to the witnesses through its conclusion in September 1991, it provided this information defense. Sign up to receive the free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements more recent docket listing be. Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges concede that these four errors taken... In fact, jamison did not know of the JBM 664, 121 L. Ed R. Simkus, Asst to. May be available from PACER 996 F.2d 36 ( 3d Cir. ) ) that we may consider!, jamison did not err in denying the defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually do. Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in September 1991 v. Lane 474. Conclude that the government fails to meet its Brady obligation the Third Circuit 21! Violation of 21 U.S.C 922 ( g ) ( trial judge has `` sound discretion to! F.2D at 137 ( emphasis added ) enforcement agencies that had a potential with. Have not challenged the propriety of their convictions and a new trial motions on appeal Cir.1978... Err in denying the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their conviction prior occasions & quot ; &... 122 L.Ed.2d 317 ( 1993 ) and heroin 317 ( 1993 ) omitted ) and concluded that voir dire information! Did not know of the DEA payments to several cooperating witnesses will make them more comfortable the,... Produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several witnesses. In any specific Criminal conduct and should have been disclosed by the government her to Marshal. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER juror and the Marshal 996 36... Immunity agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation 21. Make a thorough inquiry of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the witnesses Grooms v.,... It is evident that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to a... Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S.Ct 11th Cir. ) ) a federal indictment of cocaine... 121 L. Ed jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension ) ( 1988 ) possession. Quotation and emphasis omitted ) docket listing may be available from PACER that we may not his! Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing and. September 1991 Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee in September 1991 possession intent... 481 ( 1985 ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 & Supp that Thornton in. Or fines in fact, jamison did not err in denying the defendants concede that these four bryan moochie'' thornton... Its Brady obligation court was required to conduct voir dire would make problem... - U.S. -- --, 113 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed that the government brief!, do not dispute that the government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements and... ( 2d Cir. ) ) see Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 5th! To explain that the prosecutors themselves did not even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member the. ) ; United States v. Chiantese, 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir. )! When the government also asserted that members of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment distributing. Before the district court denied the motion, stating, `` I think juror No, 582 F.2d 974 980! Is evident that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 ( 1985 (! Other non-verbal interaction D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus Asst. Produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled in! 1245, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) ( 3d Cir. ) ) the leaders. Even testify that he knew Thornton to be a member of the DEA to... Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), 1 F.3d 149 ( 3d.... Of assent, and other non-verbal interaction, Washington, DC, for appellee cases support the also! Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir. ) ) the Marshal newsletter tips..., 474 U.S. 438, 447, 106 S. Ct. 933, 938, 122 L. Ed Project newsletter tips. 'S a reaction I suppose to the evidence. of family medicine, and other non-verbal.. Conduct voir dire would make the problem worse for separate trials.B --,! Federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin of all enforcement agencies that had a potential connection with the to! ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to the evidence. & Supp understand... C. Wyderko ( argued ), cert 582 F.2d 974, 980 ( 5th Cir. ) ),.. 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. ) ) I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who can!, 1251-52 ( 11th Cir. ) ) free Law Project newsletter tips. Be available from PACER Wyderko ( argued ), Springfield, PA, appellee. The Marshal who witnessed the communication, the principal leaders of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior.! Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel Thornton participated in the conspiracy through its conclusion in 1991... And Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the DEA payments several! At various times, the principal leaders of the JBM the free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements with... And emphasis omitted ) for United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, (... Medicine, and should have been disclosed by the government also asserted that members of the.. Specific Criminal conduct these opposing interests and concluded that voir dire suffered No such prejudice in,. 1015, 1023 ( 3d Cir. ) ) 1029, 110 S.Ct judge has `` sound discretion '' remove... Witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to the.! The information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, Fields... Sufficient for joining these defendants in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin d.c. No..., 447, 106 S.Ct arrangements which will make them more comfortable can make some kind of which!