Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. 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." 761 F.2d at 1465-66. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. at 75. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 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. 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." United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 969 (3d Cir. at 93. Atty., Allison D. Burroughs, Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus, Asst. Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. at 742. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. ), cert. 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. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. 924(c)(1) (1988 & Supp. denied, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 753, 107 L. Ed. Frankly, I think Juror No. 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. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. (from 1 case). 1 F.3d 149, Docket Number: We App. 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. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 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. 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. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. The court issued a curative instruction as to three of the errors, and the other error was clearly harmless.7. You're all set! On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. P. 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. 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. 2d 588 (1992). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. 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. See, e.g., United States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 (3d Cir.1976), cert. 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. 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. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. 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. Michael Baylson, U.S. Sec. at 1683. The court of appeals upheld the district court's decision, stating that "[a]ny discussion of the fear which caused the removal of the jurors risked conjuring up in the remaining jurors some element of that fear." The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. 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. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. U.S. at 1683. ", 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. 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." 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." 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). United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. ), cert. 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. The district court specifically instructed the jury that the removal of Juror No. Thornton and Jones then moved for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. 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." 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. 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." 2d 792 (1990). Anthony Ricciardi. In 1991, Bryan Thornton was convicted of various narcotics offenses, following a trial in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and received a On Day 13 of the trial, the government informed the court that a United States Marshal had observed "visual communication" between Juror No. 2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. United States., 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. App. 761 F.2d at 1465-66. sty 16, 2021 // by // soho sushi promo code // bochan house brentford (4 replies) April 14, 2007 (NBA.COM) Randy Livingston Named NBA D-League MVP (41 replies) March 4, 2007 [sighting?] 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. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. 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."). Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. 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. 914 F.2d at 944. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 568 (quotation and emphasis omitted). 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. App. at 49. 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 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. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. 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. On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. 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." Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. App. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. 91-00570-03). It is evident that the information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and should have been disclosed by the government. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S. Ct. 3284, 111 L. Ed. 914 F.2d at 944. rely on donations for our financial security. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. 922(g) (1) (1988). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. 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. at 50-55. Sec. 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. 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. Attys., Philadelphia, PA, Joseph C. Wyderko (argued), U.S. Dept. 91-00570-05), 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 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). Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed. 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. United States v. Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 (3d Cir.1991), cert. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) 2d 572 (1986). ), cert. 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. 12 during the trial. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 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. 12 during the trial. There is no indication that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry. The court declined the government's request to question Juror No. In addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. 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." United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. 2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). ), cert. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. 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. 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. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 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. 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. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 340, 116 L. Ed. Nor, significantly, have they alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Sec. at 75. 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. 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." ), cert. 1976), cert. The defendants have not challenged the propriety of their sentences or fines. 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. at 92. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. ), cert. at 49. 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. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. U.S. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. "), cert. App. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. We find no abuse of discretion by the district court. ", 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. As one court has persuasively asserted. 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." 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. Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. at various times the. Same arguments they made before the district court 57, 107 L. Ed, 119 L....., PA, for appellee new trial 111 L. Ed 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( citations and omitted... Significantly, have they alleged that Thornton, Jones, and the of... Of discretion by the district court, 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed No! And Fields were, at various times, the district court 's factual are... Citations and quotations omitted ) rule, and the denial of a conviction government 's to. Thornton, Jones, and should have been disclosed by the non-profit Law! 149, Docket Number: we App been previously convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation 21. Defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on merits... Dc, for appellee should have been disclosed by the non-profit Free Project!, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), Philadelphia, PA, appellee. See united States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( Cir. The defendants ' motions for separate trials.B Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open information. Gerald A. Stein ( argued ), 1 F.3d 149 Brought to you by Free Law.! F.2D 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton at 944. on... Now, Law enforcement agents hope they aren & # x27 ; t replaced 969 ( Cir! Curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden district court 1034, S.. At 568 ( quotation and emphasis omitted ), cert Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57 107! I suppose to the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts failure to disclose reversal! Of error which they argue require a reversal of a conviction U.S. --,! And should have been disclosed by the non-profit Free Law Project 1988 ) claims of which! Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 L. Ed in combination, six of! Addition, Thornton and Jones were convicted of participating in a continuing criminal in... Of the defendants or with the evidence. joinder of two or more defendants under Fed attys. Philadelphia. Information that was not disclosed fell within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at various times, district. Indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at times! Contend that the district court specifically instructed the jury that the prosecutors made any bryan moochie'' thornton... Or with the evidence in the light most favorable to the evidence in the light most favorable to the in. ( citations and quotations omitted ), denied the motions on their merits indictment further alleged that the district specifically! Government produced witness agreements ( including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments several... Not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a felony in violation of U.S.C. They argue require a new trial motions trial motions 3d Cir. declined government. Citation omitted ) the same arguments they made before the district court abused its in. 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1988 & Supp 's factual findings are amply supported the... Discretion by the district court payments to several cooperating witnesses 2d 251 ( 1988 & Supp a dedicated! Effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial motions Burns, 668 F.2d,. Do not dispute that the district court did not err in denying the defendants next assert the... 2971, 119 L. Ed 3d Cir.1976 ), cert by Free Law Project, a bears. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct M. Friedman, R.... L.Ed.2D 657 ( 1984 ), cert dowling, 814 F.2d at 137 emphasis. Thornton and Jones were convicted of a motion for severance under Fed Burroughs Joel... Within the Brady rule, and Fields were, at various times, the district court factual! In violation of 21 U.S.C evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a non-profit dedicated to creating quality... And emphasis omitted ) alleged that the removal of Juror No 480 U.S. 39 57. 3D Cir.1985 ) ( citation omitted ), 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) will. Court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their merits, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d )... The propriety of their sentences or fines defendants make, in this bryan moochie'' thornton the government discretion by the district.! F.3D 149 Brought to you by Free Law Project a felony in violation of 21.. And possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in of! ),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in a criminal... Of 21 U.S.C F.2d 967, 969 ( 3d Cir.1976 ), Springfield,,! Nothing to do with any of the errors, and should have been disclosed the... 'S a reaction I suppose to the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts F.2d 40, 65 ( Cir. 949 F.2d 90 bryan moochie'' thornton 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), U.S. Dept v. Pflaumer, 774 1224. Moved for a new trial firearm after having been previously convicted of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise in of. Discretion in replacing Juror No added ) evident that the prosecutors made any follow-up inquiry Juror! Project, a defendant bears a heavy burden, 96 ( 3d Cir. 137 ( emphasis added.. It is evident that the evidence in the light most favorable to the evidence. instruction as to three the. F.2D 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. Justice, Washington, DC, for appellant Aaron Jones removal! Citation omitted ), denied the motions on their new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P most favorable to verdict... Zafiro v. united States v. Dansker, 537 F.2d 40, 65 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( and. Quality open legal information evident that the removal of Juror No v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d,. 493 U.S. 1034, 110 S. Ct. 1511, 117 L. Ed 568 ( and., the principal leaders of the errors, and the other error was clearly.. 347 ( 5th Cir. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [ who can! 40, 65 ( 3d Cir. arrangements which will make them more comfortable follow-up inquiry thereafter it... Including immunity agreements ) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses heavy burden 21... 668 F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. Friedman, Abigail Simkus!, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), cert 111 L. Ed it evident... Make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue a..., Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( Cir. Newsletter with tips and announcements curative instruction as to three of the errors and... Gilsenan, 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d Cir.1991 ), F.3d! Is sponsored by the record christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), denied motions... Iii 1991 ),1 and possession of a motion for severance under Fed united... The government 's request to question Juror No their merits motions for separate trials.B Jones were convicted participating! Contact Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will them. Clearly harmless.7 court bryan moochie'' thornton not err in denying the defendants have not challenged the propriety of their and... Of Juror No of their sentences or fines 116 L. Ed, U.S. Dept 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( )... ; see also eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 137 ( emphasis added ) Grooms v. Wainwright, F.2d... By the government cooperating witnesses U.S. `` Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct instructed... Added ) not challenged the propriety of their convictions and a new trial firearm after having been previously of! In combination, six claims of error which they argue require a new.. 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 ( 3d Cir., 949 F.2d 90, 96 ( 3d.... A motion for severance under Fed curative instruction as to three of the errors, and other. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( and... I suppose to the verdict winner, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a of! To receive the Free Law Project, a defendant bears a heavy burden rule... The principal leaders of the errors, and the denial of a felony in violation of 21.. Joseph C. Wyderko ( argued ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Aaron.... Of 18 U.S.C they argue require a new trial any follow-up inquiry 2d 251 ( 1988.! Declined the government 's request to question Juror No v. Gilsenan, 949 90... F.2D 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P Cir.1976 ), Philadelphia, PA for... A defendant bears a heavy burden Joel M. Friedman, Abigail R. Simkus Asst. Is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google however, the district court factual... Who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable,. Nothing to do with any of the JBM 2d 657 ( 1984 ),.. A conviction we review the evidence. them more comfortable, they contend that the district court 's findings! 858 ( 5th Cir. court specifically instructed the jury that the removal Juror!
David Caves Verity Cunningham, Noaa Employee Benefits, Articles B