United States v. Morris, No. 15-2510 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed her conviction of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and five counts of wire fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from her involvement in a conspiracy to solicit participation in fake credit-repair or grant programs. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty of the conspiracy and wire fraud counts beyond a reasonable doubt; the district court properly admitted voicemail messages where defendant is heard threatening a victim that she had her social security numbers, personal information, and knew where she lived, because the evidence was relevant to show intent and was not unfairly prejudicial; the district court court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial based on a co-conspirator’s statement that defendant "killed a baby" where the statement was explained in context and was cured with further questioning; the district court's instruction sufficiently cured any potential prejudice caused by the prosecutor's comment in rebuttal closing; and the district court properly explained its reasons for defendant's sentence under the 18 U.S.C. 3353(a) factors and rejected defendant's claims that the district court should have varied downward. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Murphy and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud; no error in admitting voice mails where defendant threatened a victim of her scheme as the evidence went to intent and was not unfairly prejudicial; arguments regarding the grant of a new trial rejected as the district court's actions cured any potential prejudice; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on family responsibilities in light of the ability of other family members to provide assistance and the need to protect the public from defendant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.