United States of America v. Jennia Gwendolyn Morrow, a/k/a Gwen Jennia Gwedolyn Morrow

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2428
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JENNIA GWENDOLYN MORROW,
a/k/a Gwen
Jennia Gwedolyn Morrow,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 1-06-cr-00048-002)
District Judge: The Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2009
BEFORE: SMITH, FISHER, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 13, 2009)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the parties
and the District Court are familiar with its operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated
recitation to explain why we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Jennia Morrow, her brother Jerome Morrow and Henry Jones were charged with
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Five Grams or More of Crack Cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §846, and Possession with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of
Five Grams or More of Crack Cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(B)(iii). After a four-day trial, the jury found all of the defendants guilty. The
District Court sentenced Jennia Morrow and Jones to 63 months imprisonment on both
counts, running concurrently, with four years supervised release. The District Court
sentenced Jerome Morrow to 360 months imprisonment, running concurrently with his
state sentence, followed by eight years of supervised release. Jennia Morrow raises two
issues.
Morrow asserts a Sixth Amendment violation. At trial, a jailhouse informant
testified about a conversation that he had with Jerome Morrow. The testimony was the
subject of a motion in limine, in which the government recognized that Jerome Morrow’s
words to the informant arguably incriminated Jennia Morrow and Henry. The
government stated at the pre-trial hearing that it had worked with the informant to steer
him away from these potentially incriminating statements. However, at trial, Jerome
Morrow’s counsel cross-examined the informant, asking him “Did you see any written

-- 2 of 3 --

3
materials with respect to [Jerome Morrow’s] case?” The informant answered “He
showed me a piece of paper that said that - - she gave him - - she took two hundred
bucks.” Jerome Morrow did not testify at trial.
Jennia Morrow argues that the informant’s statement incriminated her in the
conspiracy, and claims that her inability to cross-exam Jerome Morrow resulted in a Sixth
Amendment Confrontation Clause violation. We exercise plenary review. U.S. v.
Mitchell, 145 F.3d 572, 576 (3d Cir. 1998).
The record provided ample evidence of Jennia Morrow’s participation in the
conspiracy apart from the testimony at issue. Jennia Morrow admitted receiving the
$200. Another informant also testified to this, independent from any reference to the
transcript at issue. Therefore, we conclude that even if we were to find that the
admission of this testimony was a Sixth Amendment violation, the error would be
harmless.
Morrow’s second issue on appeal, regarding the jury instruction, is meritless. In
accord with Spangler, the District Court properly instructed the jury to account for
character evidence along with all other evidence. U.S. v. Spangler, 838 F.2d 85, 86 (3d
Cir. 1988). Morrow was not entitled to a jury instruction that character evidence alone
was sufficient to create reasonable doubt.
For all of these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence of
the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --