USA v. Dunbar, et al.

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
) 	CASE NO. 1:24-CR-5-2
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
JEROME N. MORROW, 	)
) 	ORDER
Defendant. 	) 	[Resolving ECF Nos. 77, 78, 79]
The Court considers Defendant Jerome Morrow’s Motion to File Instanter (ECF No. 79)
(1) a Motion to Reveal the Deal Given Witness (ECF No. 77), (2) a Motion to Deny Testimony
of Government Expert Witness, Deny Use of Exhibits, and Continue Trial (ECF No. 78), and (3)
a Response to the Government’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of Other Acts (ECF No.
59). The Government does not oppose the instanter filings, but does oppose the evidentiary
motions (ECF No. 80). For the reasons herein, the Motion to File Pleadings Instanter (ECF No.
79) is granted, the Motion to Reveal the Deal Given Witness (ECF No. 77) is denied, and the
Motion to Deny Testimony of Government Expert Witness, Deny Use of Exhibits, and Continue
Trial (ECF No. 78) is denied.
I. DISCUSSION
A. 	Defendant’s Motion to Reveal the Deal
Defendant argues that any agreements, immunity grants, fees, or other things of value
offered to any prosecution witness should be disclosed because they may impact that witness’
reliability or credibility. See ECF No. 77 at PageID ##: 617–19. The Government counters that:
Case: 1:24-cr-00005-BYP Doc #: 87 Filed: 01/16/26 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:24-CR-5-2)
2
[T]he confidential informant (CI) does not have a formal deal with
the United States. Rather, the CI has pending state charges. Upon
her 	truthful 	testimony 	in 	federal 	court, 	the 	case 	agent 	will
recommend some consideration for her to the state prosecutor for
her pending state case. The exact amount of consideration is wholly
within the discretion of that state prosecutor, not the United States.
Should that change, the United States will promptly inform [Defense
Counsel].
ECF No. 80 at PageID ##: 626–27.
Because the Government has (1) neither made an agreement nor offered any
consideration to the CI, and (2) the decision of whether to do so lies with state prosecutors, not
the Government, Defendant’s Motion to Reveal the Deal Given Witness is denied.
B. 	Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
Defendant argues that the Government’s expert testimony notice (ECF No. 71) is
untimely and insufficiently detailed under Fed. Crim. R. 16(a)(1)(G). The Government counters
that when trial was earlier set to commence in September 2025, it told Defense Counsel—
without explicitly providing a name—that trial prosecution would require the testimony of an
expert in narcotics trafficking. After that revelation, there were extensive procedural delays and
plea negotiations between the Parties.1 Last month, Defense Counsel notified the Court that
[T]he [P]arties discussed with the Court the Defendant’s Motion to
Suppress and Supplement and each party’s position regarding the
procedure of the Motion as relates to trial and other matters . . .
[Defendant] 	advises 	the 	Court 	that 	the 	parties 	are 	in 	active
1 Defendant was indicted over two years ago and has used numerous arts to delay trial,
including four motions for continuance (ECF Nos. 39, 45, 47, 53), a contested motion for mental
health evaluation (ECF Nos. 52, 65), and an extended and contested competency hearing
(Minutes of Proceedings [Non-Document] 12/16/2025). To this end, the forensic psychologist
who evaluated Defendant opined, “Mr. Morrow may be a difficult client, and he may be
challenging to those working with him; however, these features are a product of how he chooses
to navigate the world rather than resulting from a severe and persistent mental illness. Forensic
Evaluation dated October 31, 2025.
Case: 1:24-cr-00005-BYP Doc #: 87 Filed: 01/16/26 2 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:24-CR-5-2)
3
negotiation for settlement. As such, [Defendant] does here withdraw
his Motion to Suppress[.]
ECF No. 69 at PageID #: 508.
The timing of the Government’s notice of expert witness testimony (ECF No. 71) was a
direct consequence of Defendant’s late-hour decision to reject the plea agreement and proceed to
trial. At his competency hearing, the Court reminded Defendant that final pretrial and trial were
immovable and set for January 6, 2026 and January 20, 2026, respectively. See Minutes of
Proceedings [Non-Document] 12/16/2025. Until the final pretrial conference, the Government,
Defense Counsel, and the Court were under the reasonable impression that Defendant intended to
plead guilty pursuant to a submitted agreement. Well before that, Defense Counsel was aware
that—should the case proceed to trial—the Government would call an expert witness to testify
on narcotics trafficking and trafficking organizations. Guided by Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134
(2012), the Government detailed the plea offer at the final pretrial conference that Defendant
rejected. During that same conference, Government’s counsel explained that he had given
Defendant notice of three expert witnesses, including the drugs expert who would be needed for
trial. He hoped the stipulation would allow the government to avoid certain trial related
exertions. He even offered to allow Defendant more time to consider the plea agreement and the
stipulation that would have negated the need for expert testimony. As is his right, Defendant
rejected the offers. Finding itself on new footing after the rejections, the Government promptly
entered a notice of expert witness testimony––including the witness’ training, education,
experience, and anticipated testimony—just two days later. See ECF No. 71 at PageID ##: 526–
32. Given the fluidity of the proceedings and the immediacy of the filings, the Government’s
notice is deemed sufficiently detailed and timely under Fed R. Crim. P. 16. Defendant’s Motion
to Deny Government Expert Witness (ECF No. 78) is denied.
Case: 1:24-cr-00005-BYP Doc #: 87 Filed: 01/16/26 3 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:24-CR-5-2)
4
C. 	Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Videos or Continue Trial
Defendant argues that “A[e]rial or ‘Drone Videos’” that captured alleged controlled
narcotics buys should be excluded from evidence because they were untimely provided to
Defense Counsel. ECF No. 78 at Page ID #: 622. In the alternative, he seeks continuance of
trial to create more time to review the footage and determine whether to contract a rebutting
expert witness. See ECF No. 78 at Page ID #: 622. The Government counters that:
[T]he reasons for the delay are primarily a result of three things: 1)
the long standing and good faith discussions with [Defense Counsel]
with respect to [Defendant’s] intent to plead, 2) the availability of a
recognized expert witness in drug trafficking, and 3) the case agent’s
inadvertence in not knowing it had two five-minute drone videos of
two of the controlled buys. In all three instances, the reasons for the
delay are understandable based on how quickly the posture of the
case changed.
ECF No. 80 at PageID #: 628.
There is no evidence that the Government willfully withheld or delayed sharing the drone
footage with Defendant. The record shows that the defense bears equal responsibility for any
delays in production. Within hours of discovering the footage, the Government called Defense
Counsel, told him about the videos, and provided access to them. See ECF No. 80 at PageID #:
628. Defense Counsel informed the Government that “he had trouble accessing the videos . . .
[but] managed to fix his access issue and viewed [them].” ECF No. 80 at PageID #: 628. There
is no evidence that the Government acted in bad faith or that Defendant will suffer unfair
prejudice caused by the timing of the drone footage production.
Defendant has the unequivocal right to a trial by jury. See U.S. Const. amend VI. Yet,
when considering the timing of his decision to pursue that right, it matters that Defense Counsel
received the drone footage from the Government immediately, providing adequate time to
Case: 1:24-cr-00005-BYP Doc #: 87 Filed: 01/16/26 4 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:24-CR-5-2)
5
review the footage and revise litigative tactics as necessary.2 Production of the videos was
timely under the circumstances, and there is no reason justifying further delay. Defendant’s
Motion to Deny Exhibits or Continue Trial (ECF No. 78) is denied.
II. 	Conclusion
Defendant Jerome Morrow’s Motion to File Pleadings Instanter (ECF No. 79) is granted.
His Motion to Reveal the Deal Given Witness (ECF No. 77) is denied. His Motion to Deny
Testimony of Government Expert Witness, Deny Use of Exhibits, and Continue Trial (ECF No.
78) is denied.
The Court will inquire about the Government’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence of
Other Acts (ECF No. 59) before the presentation of evidence at trial. Defense Counsel shall file
any response by 12:00 p.m. Noon on January 17, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 16, 2026 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
2 Even if technical difficulties prevented Defense Counsel from viewing the drone
footage until January 9, 2026, that does not mean he or Defendant had no knowledge of what the
footage portrayed.
Case: 1:24-cr-00005-BYP Doc #: 87 Filed: 01/16/26 5 of 5. PageID #: <pageID>