FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 20, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, Chief Judg e, United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12694

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -602 16 -C R -J IC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s K E N N E T H W I L K , a .k .a . K e n n e th P . W ilk , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 20, 2006) B ef ore D U B IN A and H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R E S T A N I , Judg e. * H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

A p p e lla n t K e n n e th W ilk ( “W ilk ” ) a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m ot i on t o s tr i ke the gove r nm e nt ’ s N ot i c e of I nt e ntt o S e e k the D e a th P e na l ty ( the “D e a th N o tic e ” ) a n d to b a rth e g o v e r n m e n t f r o m s e e k in g th e d e a th p e n a lty in h is tr ia l f o rth e m u r d e ro f

D e p u ty S h e r if

f T o d d M . F a tta ( “F a tta ” ) a n d o th e rc h a r g e s . W i l k a s s e r t s th a tth e D e a th N o t i c e w a s n o tp r o v i d e d t o h i m “ a r e a s o n a b l e t i me before the tri al ” a s r equi re d b y 18 U . S . C . § 3 59 3(a) . A ft erre vi ew and o ra l a r gum e nt , w e a f

f i r m , c onc l udi ng tha ta D e a th N ot i c e f i l e d s i x m onths be f

or e the tri al i s r ea sonabl e not i ce un der § 35 93 (a ). I . B AC KG RO UN D A . F atta’s M u rd er In the sum m erof 20 01 , W i l k’ s dom es t i c par tner, K el l y R ay Jones ( “ Jones” ), w a s a r r e s te d a n d c o n v ic te d o n c h ild p o r n o g r a p h y c h a r g e s . J o n e s w a s s e n te n c e d to tw e n ty - e ig h t m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t a n d th r e e y e a r s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . A c ondi t i on of

J one s ’ s s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e w a s tha the notus e the I nt e r ne t . D ur i ng J one s ’ s pr os e c ut i on, W i l k m a de thr e a t s t o l a w e nf or c e m e ntpe r s onne l , s om e of w h ich h e m ad e o n li n e u n d er h is co m p u ter s cr ee n n am e “W o lfp ac k ein es .” W il k ’s onl i ne pr of

i l e l i s t e d hobbi e s s uc h a s “ hunt i ng c ops ” a nd oc c upa t i ons s uc h a s “ c op b a s h in g ” a n d “a le r tin g p e o p le a b o u t k id d y p o r n s tin g s .” A r o u n d th is tim e , W ilk p u r c h a s e d s e v e r a l f

ir e a r m s a n d p a r tic ip a te d in f ir e a r m s k ill s h o o tin g c o n te s ts3

thr oughoutF l or i da . W i l k pur c ha s e d a ddi t i ona l f i r e a r m s i n 2002 a nd 2003, i ncl ud i ng a W i nchest er30 -30 ri fl e. O n J ul y 12, 2004, w hi l e on s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , J one s s e nti m a ge s de pi c t i ng chi l d p orno graphy t o an u nd er cover l aw enforce m entoffi ce r f rom W i l k’ s I nt ernet a c c ounton a c om put e ra ta r e s i de nc e s ha r e d by J one s a nd W i l k. O n J ul y 15, 2004, a s a r e s ul tof

f ur the ri nve s t i ga t i on, pol i c e obt a i ne d a s e a r c h w a r r a nt , s e a r c he d the r e s i de nc e , r e c ove r e d num e r ous c hi l d por nogr a phy i m a ge s , a nd a r r e s t e d J one s on the sc ene. W hi l e J one s w a s i nc a r c e r a t e d, he i ns truc t e d W i l k t o c ont a c ta w i tne s s w hom th e p o lic e to ld J o n e s n o t to c o n ta c t. W ilk w e n t to th e w itn e s s ’s a p a r tm e n t a n d to ld hi m tha t , e ve n i f

the w i tne s s c oope r a t e d, the w i tne s s w oul d s t i l l ha ve t o s e r ve p riso n ti m e. A t Jo n es ’s d irec ti o n , W il k se n t d er o g ato ry em ails to th e w itn es s’s bus i ne s s a s s oc i a t e i n a n a t t e m ptt o di s c r e di tthe w i tne s s . F ur the rc om m uni c a t i on b etw een Jo n es an d W i l k su g g est ed th atW i l k p l an n ed t o th reat en o r k i l l a w i tn ess ag ain st Jo n es . A lso at Jo n es ’s in stru ctio n , W il k d eleted em ails re lev an t t o Jo n es ’s ch i l d p o rn o g rap h y ch arg es. F o llo w in g th e s e e v e n ts , f e d e r a l a g e n ts o b ta in e d a n a r r e s t w a r r a n t f o rW ilk a n d a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f

o rh is r e s id e n c e . A g e n ts in itia lly p la n n e d to u s e a ru s e to lu r e W ilk f

r o m th e r e s id e n c e , b u t a b a n d o n e d th e id e a a f te rle a r n in g th a t W ilkCounts 1, 2, and 5 c ha rg e d Wilk a

nd Jone s w ithc on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss c hil d 1 p o rn o grap hy , p o s s es s i o no f c h i l d p o rn o grap hy , an d

wi tn es s an d

ev i d en ce t amp er i n g, respe ctively . Counts 3 and 4 wereag ainst J ones aloneand cha rg ed him with two counts of d i s tri b ut i o no f

c h i l d p o r n o gr a p hy. 4 a nt i c i pa t e d s uc h a t a c t i c . O n A ugus t19, 2004, F a t t a a nd S e r ge a ntA nge l o C e de no (“ C ed en o ”), b o th o f th e B ro w ard C o u n ty S h eri ff’ s O ffi ce, assi st ed fed eral ag en t s, i ncl ud i ng Im m i grat i on and C ust om s E nforcement S peci al A gentC hri st op her H a r ve y , i n the e xe c ut i on of the w a r r a nt s . A f

t e rs ur r oundi ng the r e s i de nc e a nd a n n o u n c in g th e m s e lv e s , th e o f f ic e r s f o r c ib ly e n te r e d . U po n ent ry , tw o l ar ge ca l i ber gun shot s w er e hea rd, fol l ow ed by se vera l s m a l l e rc a l i be rguns hot s . A ttha tpoi nt , C e de no w a s i nj ur e d f r om the s hoot i ng, a nd W ilk a p p e a r e d a t th e o p e n f r o n t d o o r . W ilk c o m p lie d w ith o f f ic e r s ’ d e m a n d s to surr ender and w as arre st ed. A gu n w as foun d i n t he fr on tdo orw ay fr om w hi ch W i l k e xi t e d the r e s i de nc e . I ns i de the r e s i de nc e , F a t t a w a s f ound s hoton the f

l oor a n d d id n o t a p p e a rto b e b r e a th in g . D e s p ite a tte m p ts to r e v iv e h im , F a tta subsequent l y di ed. O ther than W i l k, no on e e l se w as foun d i n t he re si dence. T he nextday, on A ug ust20 , 20 04 , the di stri ctcourtappo i nt ed J. R af ae l R odr i gue z , w ho ha s e xt e ns i ve e xpe r i e nc e i n c a pi t a l c r i m e s l i t i ga t i on, t o r e pr e s e nt W i l k. O n A ugus t26, 2004, W i l k a nd J one s w e r e i ndi c t e d j oi nt l y i n a f i ve - c ount i nd i ctm entthatchar ged t hem w i th chi l d p orno graphy and w i tness and evi dence t am peri ng offe nses . O n S ept em ber 1, 20 04 , W i l k w as arra i gn ed on thi s i ni t i al 1Th eAttor ne y Gene ral mu st a

uth orizeany

fe de ral de ath p e nalty

pros e c uti on . U .S. 2 Attor ne y s’ Manu a l § 9 -1 0. 02 0. “ In a ny c a sein whic h a

Un ite d St ate s Atto rn e y ’s Of fi c eis consideringwhether

to reque st approval to see k the death penalty , the United States Attorney shall g ive counse l for the de fenda nt a re asonableopportunity to present a

ny fac ts, including a

ny mitigatingfac tors, to the United States Attorney for c onsideration.” I d. § 9-10.030. After the U. S. Atto rn e y

de c ide s to se e k a

uth orizatio n f

or thede ath p e nalty, h emus t su bmi t a De ath Pe nalty Ev a luatio n f

or m and a pros e c uti on

me morand

um t o th eDepa

rtme nt o f Jus tic ein Was hin gton , D .C. , whic h is proc e sse d b y theCa pit a l Ca seUn it. I d. § 9 -1 0. 03 0- .0 40 . D e fens e c ouns e l is a lso prov ide d th eop po rt un ity to p re se nt f

a c ts t o th eCa

pit a l Ca seUn it whe n th eUn it considers whether

to authorize the death penalty in the case . I d. § 9-10.050. The Attorney General then makes the final decision authorizing the U .S. Attorney to seek the de ath penalty . I d. The mee ting wa s resc heduled f or Nove mber 1 a

nd later postponed until Dec ember 13. 3 Def ense c ounsel made presentations in Florida and Washington, D.C. arguing, a mong other things, that the g overnme nt should not seek the death penalty ag ainst Wi lk beca

use he had a dis e a seand

wa s d yingin a ny e ve nt. 5 i ndi c t m e nt , a nd on S e pt e m be r2, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our ts e ta tr i a l da t e of N ov em ber 1, 20 04 , on the fi ve-c ou nti nd i ctm ent . A s det ai l ed bel ow , the capi t al m urder char ges i n t hi s c as e w er e a dd ed l at er . O n S ept em ber 22, 20 04 , W i l k m ade a pres ent at i on t o t he U ni t ed S t at es A tto r n e y ’s O f

f ic e in F lo r id a r e g a r d in g th e p r o p r ie ty o f c a p ita l p u n is h m e n t in th is ca se i n con nect i on w i th F att a’ s m urder. A m ee t i ng on the m att erw i th t he C api t al 2 C a s e U n it o f

th e J u s tic e D e p a r tm e n t w a s s c h e d u le d f o rO c to b e r1 8 , 2 0 0 4 , in W a s h i n g t o n , D . C. 3 B . O ct ob er S tatu s C on fe re n ce s F r o m th e s ta r t, th is c a s e w a s c o n s id e r e d a p o te n tia l d e a th p e n a lty c a s e . A t a s t a tus c onf

e r e nc e on O c t obe r8, 2004, the gove r nm e nts t a t e d tha ti tm i ghts e e k theBe causevarious ex parte motions remain under seal, we do not identify the names of

the 4 persons or thetasks Wil k sought funds to have perfor med. 6 de a th pe na l ty i n a f

or thc om i ng s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nt . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge s u g g e s te d th a t a c o n tin u a n c e o f th e N o v e m b e r1 tr ia l d a te w a s p r o b a b ly n e c e s s a r y . O n O c t obe r15, 2004, W i l k m ove d t o c ont i nue the N ove m be r1 tr i a l , c i t i ng out s t a ndi ng di s c ove r y i s s ue s a nd the pos s i bi l i ty tha tW i l k w oul d be c ha r ge d w i th a c a p ita l o f

f e n s e . O n O c t obe r20, 2004, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d W i l k’ s m ot i on a nd c ont i nue d the tr i a l unt i l D e c e m be r13, 2004. A l s o on O c t obe r20, 2004 a nd on the e x pa r t e r e que s tof W i l k’ s c ouns e l , the m a g is tr a te ju d g e a p p o in te d W illia m M a tth e w m a n , w h o is q u a lif ie d to h a n d le d e a th p e n a lty c a s e s , a s W ilk ’s s e c o n d c o u n s e l p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 0 0 5 a n d d u e to th e p r o b a b ility o f

th is b e c o m in g a c a p ita l c a s e . A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ctcourt g r a n te d f u n d s f o ra n in v e s tig a tiv e f

ir m a n d m itig a tio n s p e c ia lis t s o th a t W ilk c o u ld p r e p a r e f o ra d e a th p e n a lty tr ia l. 4 O n O c t obe r21, 2004, the gr a nd j ur y r e tur ne d a s i x- c ounts upe r s e di ng in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t o n ly W ilk c h a r g in g h im w ith th e s a m e p o s s e s s io n o f c h ild por nogr a phy a nd w i tne s s a nd e vi de nc e t a m pe r i ng of f e ns e s i n the pr i ori ndi c t m e nt a nd a ddi ng c ount s f

or : ( 1) the m a l i c e m ur de rof F a t t a , w hi l e he w a s a s s i s t i ng a f e de r a l of f i c e re nga ge d i n of

f i c i a l dut i e s , de s i gna t e d a s a c a pi t a l c ount ; ( 2) the a t t e m pt e d m ur de rof

C e de no; ( 3) the us e of

a f i r e a r m dur i ng the m ur de ra ndThe super sedingindictment omitt ed the c onspiracy to possess child pornography count 5 c ha rg e d in thefi rs t in dic tme nt. It is not clear whe ther Wilk waived his speedy trial rights under the initial indictment or 6 thesu pe rs e din gindic tme nt. 7 a tte m p te d m u r d e r , d e s ig n a te d a s a c a p ita l c o u n t; a n d ( 4 ) o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e in conn ec t i on w i th Jon es ’ s prose cut i on . T he supers edi ng i nd i ctm ental so re fe re nced 5 18 U . S . C . §§ 35 91 (a )( 2)(A )- (D ) a nd 35 92 (c ), w hi ch se tou tthe st atut ory a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s r e qui r e d t o i m pos e the de a th pe na l ty , a nd the n l i s t e d the c ha r ge d s t a tut or y a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s i n thi s c a s e a s : ( 1) W i l k w a s ove rthe a ge of e i ght e e n; ( 2) W i l k i nt e nt i ona l l y ki l l e d F a t t a ; ( 3) W i l k know i ngl y c r e a t e d a gr a ve r i s k of de a th t o one orm or e pe r s ons i n a ddi t i on t o F a t t a ; ( 4) W i l k c om m i t t e d the m u r d e ra f

te rs u b s ta n tia l p la n n in g a n d p r e m e d ita tio n ; a n d ( 5 ) W ilk in te n tio n a lly k i l l e d o ra t t e m p t e d t o k i l l m o r e th a n o n e p e r s o n i n a s i n g l e c r i m i n a l e p i s o d e . On O c to b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , W ilk w a s a r r a ig n e d o n th e s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t. C . O ct ob er 28 , 20 04 , C on fe re n ce s A tan O ct ob er28 st atus confer ence before the di stri ctcourt , W i l k request ed a c o n tin u a n c e o f

th e D e c e m b e r1 3 tr ia l a n d w a iv e d h is r ig h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l. 6 W i l k st at ed thata c on t i nu ance w as nece ss ary due t o o ut st andi ng di sc ov ery i ss ues a n d a D e c e m b e r1 3 m e e tin g w ith th e D e p a r tm e n t o f J u s tic e C a p ita l C a s e U n it r e g a r d in g w h e th e rth e g o v e r n m e n t w o u ld s e e k th e d e a th p e n a lty . T he gove r nm e ntopi ne d tha tthe c a s e w a s notc om pl i c a t e d, but8

a c k n o w le d g e d th a t W ilk ’s m e n ta l s ta tu s w a s a p o te n tia lly c o m p lic a tin g m a tte r . T he go vernm entsugg es t ed a M ay tri al dat e bec ause i tbel i eved t hatdi sc ov ery w oul d ha ve be e n c om pl e t e by the n a nd a de c i s i on w oul d ha ve be e n m a de a bout s e e k in g th e d e a th p e n a lty . T h e g o v e r n m e n t e s tim a te d th a t it w o u ld d e liv e rits di s c ove r y m a t e r i a l s t o the de f e ns e by the f

ol l ow i ng w e e k. W il k o u tl in ed th e o u tstan d in g d isco v er y iss u es , i n clu d in g ac ce ss to W il k ’s re si dence, re vi ew of conv er sa t i on s betw ee n W i l k and Jones, and revi ew of po l i ce r e por t s a nd 911 r e c or di ngs . W i l k a l s o e xpr e s s e d hi s ne e d t o pr oc ur e e xpe r t s f orthe gu i l tand p enal ty phase s a nd t o al l ow them t i m e t o anal yz e the evi dence. W i l k t hen expres se d h i s f

rustra t i on w i th t he fa ctthathe di d n othave acc es s t o h i s r es i dence f ori nve s t i ga t i ve purpos e s a nd not e d tha the w a s c ur r e nt l y pr e pa r i ng f orthe u p c o m in g m e e tin g w ith th e D e p a r tm e n t o f J u s tic e r e g a r d in g th e d e a th p e n a lty in th is c a s e . W ilk o p in e d th a t th e d e f e n s e c o u ld n o t b e r e a d y b y M a y 2 0 0 5 d u e to its n eed t o p rep are, esp eci al l y i f th e g o v ern m en to p t ed t o seek th e d eat h p en al ty. T he di s tr i c tc our tr e s e tthe tr i a l da t e f r om D e c e m be r13, 2004 t o A pr i l 18, 2 0 0 5 . Wi l k o b

j e c t e d t o th e Ap r i l 1 8 tr i a l d a t e , b e l i e v i n g th a tth e r e wa s n o “ wa y we ca n b e r ea dy for a po t ent i al death p enal ty c as e by thatt i m e. ” T he di stri ctcourt ove r rul e d the obj e c t i on, not i ng tha tW i l k’ s tw o c ouns e l s w e r e qua l i f i e d a nd e xpe r i e nc e d w i th tr y i ng c a pi t a l c a s e s , tha ta n A pr i l 18 tr i a l w a s ove rf i ve m onths9

a w a y , a nd tha tthe c a s e w a s notc om pl e x. A ta s e pa r a t e s t a tus c onf e r e nc e on O c t obe r28, 2004, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge a ddr e s s e d di s c ove r y de a dl i ne s . W i l k a ga i n e xpr e s s e d hi s di s s a t i s f a c t i on w i th the A p r il 1 8 tr ia l d a te , in d ic a tin g th a t c o u n s e l w o u ld n o t b e r e a d y f o rtr ia l b y th a t tim e . W il k ’s co u n se l ex p re ss ly stre ss ed th at th e c as e w as a “p o ten ti al ca p it al ca se [.]” D . N ov em b er an d D ec em b er C on fe re n ce s A ta N ove m be r12, 2004, s t a tus he a r i ng, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge a ddr e s s e d the st atus of di sc ov ery. T he go vernm entst at ed thati t s di sc ov ery m at er i al w as a v a i l a b l e f

o rWi l k a tth e c o p i e r s , b u ta d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , s u c h a s DV Ds a n d C Ds c ont a i ni ng e vi de nc e , w e r e s t i l l be i ng pr e pa r e d. T he pa r t i e s the n di s c us s e d w ho w oul d pa y f

orthe dupl i c a t i on c os t s . T ha ts a m e da y , W i l k f i l e d e x pa r t e m ot i ons f orf ourde f e ns e e xpe r t s . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge gr a nt e d f undi ng f orthe e xpe r t s on D e c e m be r28. A ta D e c e m be r2, 2004, s t a tus c onf e r e nc e , the gove r nm e nts t a t e d tha tthe di s c ove r y i s s ue s w e r e pr oc e e di ng pr ope r l y a nd tha ti tha d s e nta s e c ond s e tof m at er i al s t o t he copi er s. W i l k n ot ed thata m ot i on t o com pel som e a dd i t i on al di sc ov ery m at er i al s f

rom the go vernm entm ay be neces sa ry depend i ng on w hat w as al re ady a tthe copi er s. W i l k’ s c ou nsel no t ed thatthe ca se w as a “ po t ent i al c a pi t a l c a s e ” a nd e xpr e s s e d the “ ne e d t o pr e pa r e , notonl y f orthe [ D e c e m be r13]10

D O J m eet i n g , b u tal so fo r [th e A p ri l 1 8 ] tri al an d an y d eat h p en al ty i ssu es. ” A l so on D e c e m be r2, W i l k f

i l e d a n e x pa r t e m ot i on f ora f i f th e xpe r t , w hi c h the m agi stra t e j ud ge grant ed on Ja nu ary 31, 20 05 . O n D ec em ber 21, W i l k fi l ed ex part e m ot i on s f

or hi s s i xt h and se vent h exp er t s, w hi ch the m agi stra t e j ud ge grant ed o n J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 . E . Ja n u ary C on fe re n ce s A t a J a n u a r y 5 , 2 0 0 5 , s ta tu s c o n f e r e n c e , th e p a r tie s a d d r e s s e d a d is p u te r e g a r d in g a c c e s s to W ilk ’s h o u s e a n d th e c o lle c tio n o f p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e th e r e . W i l k w a nt e d t o r e m ove c e r t a i n i t e m s f r om the r e s i de nc e t o pr e pa r e f ortr i a l , butthe g o v e r n m e n t o p p o s e d th e r e m o v a l w ith o u t a f o r m a l a c c o u n tin g o f

th e ite m s . A l so on J a nua r y 5, W i l k f

i l e d a n e x pa r t e m ot i on f ora ddi t i ona l i nve s t i ga t i ve f e e s f or tr a v e l to in te r v ie w r e le v a n t w itn e s s e s in p r e p a r a tio n f o rth e p e n a lty p h a s e . A dd i t i on al l y, he fi l ed a m ot i on for hi s e i gh th exp er t . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge grant ed th e m o t i o n s o n F eb ru ary 4 an d 2 4 , resp ect i v el y. O n J a nua r y 28, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our the l d a nothe rs t a tus c onf e r e nc e . T he gove r nm e nts t a t e d tha ti tha d m a de a pr e s e nt a t i on i n D e c e m be ri n W a s hi ngt on, D . C . re gardi ng the death p enal ty i n W i l k’ s c as e, bu tthatthe A t t orney G ener al w ou l d n otm ake a deci si on un t i l F ebruary 25 beca use the new A t t orney G ener al ha d notbe e n c onf

i r m e d y e t . T he di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha ta D e a th N ot i c e m us tbe11

f ile d a r e a s o n a b le tim e b e f o r e tr ia l. I n thi s r e ga r d, 18 U . S . C . § 3593( a ) pr ovi de s tha ti n a c a pi t a l c a s e the go vernm entshal l , “ a r ea sonabl e t i m e bef ore the tri al , ” f

i l e w i th t he di stri ctcourt a nd s e r ve on the de f

e nda ntnot i c e tha tthe de a th pe na l ty i s j us t i f i e d a nd l i s tthe a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s j us t i f

y i ng a de a th s e nt e nc e . D ur i ng the s t a tus c onf e r e nc e , the gove r nm e ntc ont e nde d tha tf i l i ng a D e a th N ot i c e a s l a t e a s F e brua r y 25, 2005, f or th e A p ri l 1 8 tri al w as “ a reaso n ab l e t i m e b efo re th e tri al ” u n d er § 3 5 9 3 (a) b ecau se ( 1 ) W ilk a lr e a d y h a d a s e c o n d d e f e n s e c o u n s e l a p p o in te d in O c to b e r2 0 0 4 in ant i ci pat i on of the death p enal ty, and (2) t he di stri ctcourtal re ady had cond uct ed e x p a r te h e a r in g s r e g a r d in g W ilk ’s r e te n tio n o f e x p e r ts a n d m itig a tin g a s p e c ts rel at i n g t o th e d eat h p en al ty. W i l k e xpl a i ne d tha t , a s s um i ng the D e a th N ot i c e w a s f i l e d on F e brua r y 25, de f e ns e c ouns e l s t i l l w oul d notbe r e a dy f ora c a pi t a l c a s e by A pr i l 18 a nd the n o t i c e wo u l d n o tb e r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r§ 3 5 9 3 ( a ) . Wi l k a r g u e d th a tth e f a c tth a ttwo l a w y e r s ha d be e n a ppoi nt e d w a s notr e l e va nta nd tha ta r e a s ona bl e t i m e f orf i l i ng th e n o tic e w a s s ix m o n th s b e f o r e tr ia l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d th a t “it w o u ld pr oba bl y be hoove the de f e nda ntt o a s s um e tha tthe gove r nm e ntw i l l be s e e ki ng the d e a th p e n a lty .” G i ve n tha tthe s t a tut or y a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s w e r e a l r e a dy l i s t e d i n theThe g overnme nt provided the non-statutory ag gravating f

actor s to the defense via letter 7 on Februar

y 4, 2005. 12 O c to b e r2 1 s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t, th e g o v e r n m e n t a ls o a g r e e d to p r o v id e W ilk w ith a lis t o f

n o n - s ta tu to r y a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s f o rs e e k in g th e d e a th p e n a lty w ith in t en d ays so th atW i l k w o u l d n o tb e h am p ered i n th e p rep arat i o n o f h i s d efen se s houl d the A t t or ne y G e ne r a l a uthor i z e the de a th pe na l ty . W i l k obj e c t e d t o the 7 p r o c e d u r e , a r g u in g th a t a F e b ru a r y D e a th N o tic e c o u ld n o t b e r e a s o n a b le w ith r e s p e c t to a n A p r il tr ia l d a te . W he n the di s tr i c tc our ti nqui r e d how W i l k w oul d be prej ud i ce d i f he a l re ady w as apprai se d o f the st atut ory a nd no n-st atut ory aggravat i ng fa ct ors, W i l k res po nd ed thatprej ud i ce w as i rr el evantas § 3 59 3(a) re qu i re d stri ctcom pl i ance . A tthe J a nua r y 28, 2005, c onf e r e nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tc onf i r m e d tha tthe tri al w as se tfor A pri l 18 , 20 05 , and o rder ed the go vernm entt o fi l e a D ea th N ot i ce b y F e b ru a r y 1 8 , w h ic h w o u ld p r o v id e th e A tto r n e y G e n e r a l s u f f ic ie n t tim e to re vi ew the ca se . T he part i es then ext ensi vel y di sc usse d t he j ury quest i on nai re , w h ic h , o v e rW ilk ’s o b

je c tio n , in c lu d e d q u e s tio n s r e g a r d in g c a p ita l p u n is h m e n t. F . F eb ru ary C on fe re n ce s O n F e b ru a r y 2 , 2 0 0 5 , W ilk f ile d a n e x p a r te m o tio n f o rh is n in th e x p e r t, w hi ch the m agi stra t e j ud ge grant ed on M ar ch 9, 20 05 . O n F ebruary 4, W i l k fi l ed a nothe re x pa r t e m ot i on f ora ddi t i ona l f

unds f orthe m i t i ga t i on s pe c i a l i s ta nd13

i nve s t i ga t i ve f

i r m a l r e a dy w or ki ng on the pe na l ty pha s e . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge gr a nt e d the m ot i on on M a r c h 9. A ta F ebruary 10 , 20 05 , st atus confer ence , the go vernm entac kn ow l edged the F ebruary 18 deadl i ne t o fi l e the D ea th N ot i ce and exp l ai ned t hatthe A t t orney G e n e r a l w a s s till r e v ie w in g th e c a s e . W ilk s ta te d th a t h e w o u ld f ile m o s t o f

h is m ot i ons by the F e brua r y 14 m ot i ons de a dl i ne , butr e que s t e d a ddi t i ona l t i m e f or s o m e m o tio n s in lig h t o f th e F e b ru a r y 1 8 D e a th N o tic e d e a d lin e . W i l k’ s c ou nsel s ta te d th a t “a s o f

n o w th e c a s e is n o t a c a p ita l c a s e ” a n d a d v is e d th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e th a t “a w h o le n e w r a n g e o f m o tio n s a n d a w h o le n e w r a n g e o f is s u e s ” w o u ld a r is e s h o u ld th e g o v e r n m e n t f ile a D e a th N o tic e . T h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s p o n d e d th a t it h a d in te n d e d to s e e k a p p r o v a l f o rth e d e a th p e n a lty f

r o m th e b e g in n in g o f

th e c a s e . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e e x p la in e d th a t W ilk s h o u ld tr e a t th e c a s e a s a d e a th p e n a lty c a s e a nd i ndi c a t e d tha tthe A pr i l 18 tr i a l da t e w a s f i r m a nd f a s ta ppr oa c hi ng. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge al so expres se d res er vat i on s abo utext endi ng the m ot i on s dea dl i ne, b u t a llo w e d W ilk u n til F e b ru a r y 1 6 to f ile h is m o tio n s . O n F eb ru ary 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , W i l k ’ s tw o co u n sel s fi l ed th ese t h i rty-n i n e m o t i o n s: ( 1) thi r t e e n m ot i ons t o di s m i s s va r i ous c ount s of the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nton gr ounds s uc h a s f

a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c r i m e , unc ons t i tut i ona l i ty of the unde r l y i ng cri m i n al st atu t e, d u p l i ci ty an d m u l t i p l i ci ty, l ack o f j u ri sd i ct i o n , v ag u en ess,14

gove r nm e nt a l de l a y , a nd i ns uf f i c i e ntc om m e r c e c l a us e ne xus ; ( 2) a m ot i on f or prod uct i on of l egal i nstruct i on s provi ded t o t he grand j ury; (3) a m ot i on for a pr e tr i a l he a r i ng t o de t e r m i ne the e xi s t e nc e of a c ons pi r a c y , the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of al l eg ed co n sp i rat o ri al st at em en t s, an d t o ex cl u d e al l eg ed co -co n sp i rat o r h earsay; (4) a m ot i on t o b i furc at e the forf ei ture c ou nt ; (5) a m ot i on for e ar l y J encks A ct di sc l osure; (6) a F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 12 (b)( 4)(B ) m ot i on for not i ce by the gove r nm e ntof

i t s i nt e nt i on t o us e e vi de nc e i n i t s c a s e - i n- c hi e f ; ( 7) a m ot i on for c hang e of venue based on p re j ud i ci al pretri al pu bl i ci ty; (8) tw o m ot i on s f or a bi l l of pa r t i c ul a r s , one e a c h on the obs truc t i on of j us t i c e a nd c hi l d por nogr a phy c ount s ; ( 9) a m ot i on t o s tr i ke the s t a tut or y a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s f r om the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nt ; ( 10) a m ot i on t o s tr i ke “ s urpl us a ge ” f r om the s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nt ; ( 11) a m ot i on t o s e ve rthe c ount s ; ( 12) a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s the phone ca l l s betw ee n W i l k and Jones; (13) ni ne m ot i on s i n l i m i ne re gardi ng pretri al lin e u p s , b a n k ru p tc y c a s e s , 9 1 1 a n d f ir e r e s c u e ta p e s , c o n v e r s a tio n s b e tw e e n W ilk and Jon es , pastse ar ches and sei zure s a tW i l k’ s r es i dence, Jones’ s gui l ty pl ea , W ilk ’s “p e rp w a lk ” a n d m u g s h o ts , a n d o th e rc r im e s e v id e n c e ; ( 1 4 ) a m o tio n to e xc l ude the gove r nm e nt ’ s e xpe r tw i tne s s e s ; ( 15) a m ot i on t o s uppr e s s f rui t s of the se ar ch w ar ra n t ex ec u ted o n A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 ; (1 6 ) a m o ti o n to su p p re ss W il k ’s m ed i cal an d p sych i atri c reco rd s; (1 7 ) a m o t i o n t o su p p ress W i l k ’ s p o st -arrestAlthough thenotice wa s postmarked F ebrua ry 22, 2005, defense counse l did not rece ive 8 a copy until Februa

ry 24, 2005. The g overnme nt expl ained the dispa rity as a result of the Presidents’ Da

y holiday . Wil k was ne ver personally serve d with a copy

of the notice . We could not locate in the record the letter, referenc ed at the January 28, 2005, status 9 conferenc e, listing the non- statutory ag gravating f

actor s, and, thus, we do not know if Wilk had alre ady been advised of thesefac tors. See supra note 6. 15 st at em en t s; an d (1 8 ) a m o t i o n t o co m p el d i sco v ery. O n F e brua r y 18, 2005, the gove r nm e ntf i l e d a f or m a l D e a th N ot i c e ba s e d on the m a l i c e m ur de rof

F a t t a a nd the us e of

a f i r e a r m r e s ul t i ng i n F a t t a ’ s de a th. T he 8 st atu t o ry ag g rav at i n g fact o rs l i st ed i n th e D eat h N o t i ce w ere i d en t i cal t o th o se lis te d in th e s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t f ile d o n O c to b e r2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . T he D ea th N ot i ce a l s o l i s t e d th e f

o l l o w i n g n o n - s t a tu t o r y a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o r s u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 59 3(a) (2): (1) W i l k k i l l ed F att a i n an at t em ptt o o bstructj ust i ce ; (2) W i l k m ay be c onvi c t e d c ont e m por a ne ous l y of c ha r ge s i n a ddi t i on t o the c a pi t a l c ha r ge s ; ( 3) W ilk w a s a d a n g e rto o th e r s ; a n d ( 4 ) W ilk c a u s e d in ju r y a n d h a r m to F a tta ’s f a m ily by ki l l i ng F att a. 9 A ta F ebruary 24 , 20 05 , st atus confer ence , the m agi stra t e j ud ge sc hedu l ed he a r i ngs c om m e nc i ng on F e brua r y 28 pr i m a r i l y f orW i l k’ s s uppr e s s i on m ot i ons a n d n o te d th a t s h e w o u ld h e a ro r a l a r g u m e n t o n a ll th e m o tio n s if W ilk d e s ir e d . T he gove r nm e nte xpr e s s e d i t s i nt e ntt o f i l e a s e c ond s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e ntt o a dd a n a d d itio n a l c a p ita l c o u n t r e la tin g to F a tta ’s m u r d e r . W i l k’ s def ense coun se l s ta te d th e y h a d a “s le w o f a d d itio n a l m o tio n s ” to f ile r e g a r d in g th e D e a th N o tic e .Neither the first nor the se cond super sedingindictment included the non-statutory 10 a g gra vatin gfa c tor s, but th eDe ath N oti c edid inc lud ethe m. 16 T he m agi stra t e j ud ge re spon ded t hatshe had previ ou sl y w arned t he defense t o t re at th e case as a cap i t al case an d t o fi l e al l m o t i o n s acco rd i n g l y, b u tn ev ert h el ess al l ow ed addi t i on al m ot i on s t o b e f i l ed by M ar ch 11 . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge heard m ot i ons a r gum e nt s on F e brua r y 28, M a r c h 2, a nd M a r c h 9. G . M a r c h M o t i o ns O n M a r c h 8, 2005, W i l k f i l e d a m ot i on t o s tr i ke the D e a th N ot i c e f i l e d on F e brua r y 18. O n M a r c h 10, 2005, the gove r nm e ntf i l e d a s e ve n- c ounts e c ond s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nt , w hi c h r e t a i ne d the s i x c ount s f r om the f i r s ts upe r s e di ng i nd i ctm entand add ed a thi rd capi t al coun tchar gi ng W i l k w i th t he m urder of F att a, a s ta te la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r , w h ile F a tta w a s w o r k in g w ith a f e d e r a l o f f ic e rin f u r th e r a n c e o f

a f e d e r a l in v e s tig a tio n . T h e s ta tu to r y a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s lis te d in th e s e c o n d s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t w e r e id e n tic a l to th o s e lis te d in th e D e a th N o tic e a n d th e f

ir s t s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t. 10 O n M a r c h 9, 2005, W i l k f i l e d a n e x pa r t e m ot i on f orhi s t e nth e xpe r t . T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge gr a nt e d the m ot i on on A pr i l 20. O n M ar ch 11 , 20 05 , W i l k fi l ed three se para t e m ot i on s t o d ec l ar e the F eder al D ea th P enal ty A ctun const i tut i on al , i nt eral i a, (1) bec ause of i t s uncon st i tut i on al use, autho ri za t i on , and t re atm entof aggravat i ng fa ct ors a nd i t s f ai l ure t o p rovi de aRing v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S . Ct. 2428 (2002). 11 Crawf ord v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). 12 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 13 17 s t a nda r d f

orj ur or s t o e m pl oy i n ba l a nc i ng a ggr a va t i ng a nd m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s ; a nd (2) i n l i gh tof R i ng , C ra w ford, and B oo ker. 11 12 13 A l so o n M arch 1 1 , W i l k fi l ed a m o t i o n t o ex t en d th e t i m e fo r fi l i n g m o t i o n s, ar gu i ng , am on g o ther thi ng s, thatthe go vernm enthad fi l ed on l y par t i al expert w i tne s s di s c l os ur e s , the gove r nm e ntha d notpr ovi de d a l l di s c ove r y , a nd the de f e ns e ha d notha d t i m e t o r e vi e w the s e c ond s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e nt . T he m a g is tr a te ju d g e g r a n te d W ilk ’s m o tio n a n d e x te n d e d th e m o tio n s d e a d lin e to M ar ch 18 . F ol l ow i ng W i l k’ s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on of the m ot i on s dea dl i ne, the di s tr i c tc our te xt e nde d the de a dl i ne t o M a r c h 30. O n M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , W ilk f ile d a n e x p a r te m o tio n f o rh is e le v e n th e x p e r t, w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d, i n a n a bunda nc e of c a ut i on, on A pr i l 20, 2005, o v e rth e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s d e n ia l. A l so on M ar ch 15 , the go vernm entm ov ed for l ea ve t o fi l e a n am ended D e a th N ot i c e t o i nc l ude the a ddi t i ona l c a pi t a l m ur de rc ountc ont a i ne d i n the s e c ond supers edi ng i nd i ctm ent . T he st atut ory a nd no n-st atut ory a gg ra vat i ng fa ct ors l i st ed i n t he prop osed am ended D ea th N ot i ce w er e i dent i ca l t o t ho se foun d i n t he i ni t i al D ea th N ot i ce . T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed the m ot i on , no t i ng thatthe am endedDaube rt v. Merrell Dow Pharma ceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). 14 18 D e a th N ot i c e w a s i de nt i c a l t o the pr i ornot i c e e xc e ptf orthe a ddi t i on of

l a ngua ge r e la tin g to th e n e w c a p ita l m u r d e rc h a r g e in th e s e c o n d s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t. O n M arch 2 5 , i n ad d i t i o n t o a m o t i o n t o ad o p th i s m o t i o n s o n th e fi rst su p ersed i n g i n d i ct m en tfo r th e seco n d su p ersed i n g i n d i ct m en t , W i l k fi l ed th ese m o tio n s r e la tin g to th e s e c o n d s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t: ( 1 ) s e v e n m o tio n s to di sm i ss vari ou s c ou nt s of the se cond supers edi ng i nd i ctm enton grou nd s s uch as dupl i c i ty , m ul t i pl i c i ty , due pr oc e s s a nd doubl e j e opa r dy , vi ol a t i on of the G r a nd J ur y c l a us e a nd othe ri r r e gul a r i t i e s , f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c r i m e , l a c k of j ur i s di c t i on, a nd i m prop erdel ay ; (2) a m ot i on t o “ tri furc at e” j ury del i bera t i on s; (3) a prel i m i nary D a ube r t m ot i on t o e xc l ude the gove r nm e nt ’ s e xpe r tw i tne s s e s ; a nd ( 4) a m ot i on

14 t o di s m i s s the s e c ond s upe r s e di ng i ndi c t m e ntdue t o vi ol a t i on of W i l k’ s s pe e dy tr ia l r ig h ts . O n M ar ch 31 , 20 05 , W i l k fi l ed a m ot i on t o stri ke the am ended D ea th N ot i ce a nd a m ot i on f

ora n i m m e di a t e rul i ng on tha tm ot i on. H . M arch 30 , 20 05 , C on fe re n ce O n M a r c h 30, 2005, the di s tr i c tc our the l d a s t a tus c onf e r e nc e t o di s c us s the p e n d in g m o tio n s . W ilk h im s e lf w a s n o t p r e s e n t. T he di stri ctcourthad rece i ved the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e por t s a nd r e c om m e nda t i ons a nd e xpe c t e d t o r e c e i ve19

tr a n s c r ip ts o f

th e p r e tr ia l m o tio n s h e a r in g s b e f o r e th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e b y A p r il 1 1 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p la in e d th a t it w o u ld is s u e o r d e r s o n th e m o tio n s “s h o r tly th e r e a f te r .” T h e p a r tie s d is c u s s e d e v id e n tia r y is s u e s a s to th e ire x p e r t w itn e s s e s . T he go vernm entdi d n otbel i eve a hear i ng on the go vernm ent ’ s e xp er t s w as needed, as the expert s w ou l d t es t i fy on no n-cont rovers i al t op i cs such as bal l i st i cs a n d r e c o n s tru c tio n o f

th e c r im e s c e n e . W i l k d i sag reed , st at i n g th ath e h ad j u st r e c e iv e d th e m a te r ia l u p o n w h ic h th e g o v e r n m e n t e x p e r ts r e lie d a n d n e e d e d to p r o v id e it to d e f

e n s e e x p e r ts f

o rr e v ie w , w h ic h w o u ld ta k e tim e . T he di stri ctcourt m a de the w e e k pr i ort o the A pr i l 18 tr i a l a va i l a bl e f ora he a r i ng on the gove r nm e nt expert s a nd i nform ed the part i es thatcom pl et ed j ury quest i on nai re s w er e a vai l abl e. T he gove r nm e nte xpr e s s e d i t s c onc e r n tha ti tm a y notbe r e a dy f ortr i a l on A p r il 1 8 d u e to o u ts ta n d in g d is c o v e r y a n d e x p e r t w itn e s s is s u e s . T he gove r nm e nt op i ned t hati tcoul d b e r ea dy, bu tbel i eved t hatdi sc ov ery i ss ues s t i l l w er e devel op i ng . T he go vernm entpo i nt ed t o W i l k’ s pot ent i al m ent al heal th d ef ense , no t i ng thati tw ou l d i nv ol ve “ som e pre t ty i nt ri ca t e a nd com pl ex expert te s tim o n y [ ,]” a n d s ta te d th a t W ilk h a d n o t y e t d is c lo s e d h is e x p e r ts o n th e m a tte r . I n l i ghtof

W i l k’ s pos s i bl e m e nt a l he a l th de f e ns e , the gove r nm e nta nt i c i pa t e d the n e e d to h a v e its o w n e x p e r t e x a m in e W ilk , w h ic h , u n d e rth e tim e f r a m e p r e s e n tly i n pl a c e , w oul d ha ve t o oc c urw hi l e the A pr i l 18 tr i a l w a s pr oc e e di ng.20

T h e g o v e r n m e n t b e lie v e d a la te s u m m e ro rf a ll tr ia l w o u ld p r o v id e W ilk w ith s u f f ic ie n t tim e to p r e p a r e . W ilk b la m e d th e g o v e r n m e n t f o rd e la y in di sc l osi ng vari ou s di sc ov ery m at er i al s; po i nt ed ou tthathe had t o see k cou rt approv al for hi s e xp er t s, a t i m e- consum i ng proces s; as se rt ed thatthe defense w as w or ki ng a s qui c kl y a s pos s i bl e w i th the A pr i l 18 tr i a l da t e i n m i nd; not e d tha tthe gu i l tand p enal ty phase s of a capi t al ca se w er e i next ri ca bl y i nt er tw i ned; and asked the di s tr i c tc our t“ t o c ons i de rthe s e i s s ue s ve r y c a r e f ul l y be f or e i tde c i de s t o go f o r w a r d o n th e A p r il 1 8 th tr ia l d a te .” T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otbel i eve the go vernm enthad i nt ent i on al l y del ay ed d is c o v e r y o re v e n b e e n d ila to r y in th e le a s t b u t r e lu c ta n tly c o n c lu d e d th a t a c ont i nua nc e w a s ne c e s s a r y be c a us e i tw a s “ be t t e rt o e r ron the s i de of de l a y i ng the tri al and g i vi ng the defendantm ore t i m e i n w hi ch t o p re pare the defense . ” W i thout w ai vi ng any of hi s a rgum ent s, W i l k sug gest ed the day a ft erL abor D ay as the new po t ent i al tri al dat e. T he di stri ctcourtse l ec t ed A ug ust29 , 20 05 as the new p o t e n t i a l tr i a l d a t e . Th e g o v e r n me n ti n q u i r e d a s t o w h e th e rth e a d d i t i o n a l t i me w oul d be e xc l uda bl e unde rthe S pe e dy T r i a l A c t . W i l k’ s c ouns e l c oul d not re spon d t o t he prop osed cont i nu ance or the excl usi on of t i m e f or S peedy T ri al A ct pu rposes beca use W i l k w as no tpres ent , bu tthen o pi ned t hatthe prop erprocedure w a s to s tr ik e th e D e a th N o tic e a n d p r o c e e d to tr ia l o n A p r il 1 8 . T he di stri ctcourt21

s c h e d u le d a n o th e rs ta tu s c o n f e r e n c e f o rA p r il 1 s o th a t W ilk c o u ld b e p r e s e n t. I. A p ri l 1, 20 05 , C on fe re n ce A t th e A p r il 1 , 2 0 0 5 , s ta tu s c o n f e r e n c e , W ilk s ta te d th a t h e w a s p r e p a r e d to g o to tr ia l o n A p r il 1 8 if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d h is m o tio n to s tr ik e th e D e a th N ot i ce . If

the di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on t o stri ke, W i l k w ou l d fi l e a n i nt e r l oc ut or y a ppe a l t o thi s C our ta nd m ove the di s tr i c tc our tt o s t a y the pr oc e e di ngs . W i l k c onc e de d tha tthe t i m e dur i ng hi s i nt e r l oc ut or y a ppe a l w oul d be e x c lu d a b le u n d e rth e S p e e d y T r ia l A c t. T he gove r nm e ntbe l i e ve d tha tW i l k w a s “ e xt or t i ng” the di s tr i c tc our ta nd po i nt ed ou tthatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d fi nd t i m e e xcl ud abl e und erthe S peedy T ri al A cti n l i gh tof W i l k’ s r ef usal t o t ake a fi rm po si t i on on the prop osed cont i nu ance o f th e tr ia l d a te to A u g u s t 2 9 . T he gove r nm e ntbe l i e ve d tha tW i l k’ s ne w s t a t e m e nt th a t h e w a s p r e p a r e d f

o ra n o n - c a p ita l tr ia l o n A p r il 1 8 w a s in c o n s is te n t w ith h is rep eat ed req u est s fo r co n t i n u an ces an d th e o u t st an d i n g d i sco v ery m at t ers. W i l k r e s ponde d tha tdi f f e r e nttr i a l s tr a t e gi e s w oul d be e m pl oy e d de pe ndi ng o n w h e th e rth e D e a th N o tic e w a s in e f f e c t. W ilk a s s e r te d th a t h e w a s n o t tr y in g to expl oi tthe di stri ctcourt , bu tw ant ed a rul i ng on the D ea th N ot i ce before he w as a s k e d to w a iv e h is r ig h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notw a ntt o rul e on W i l k’ s m ot i on t o stri ke the am ended D ea th N ot i ce un t i l the go vernm enthadThe factors include: “ (1) the nature of thecharg es pre sented in the indictment; (2) the 15 natureof the ag gravating f actor s provided in the De ath Notice; ( 3) the pe riod of time re maining before trial, mea sured at the instant the Death Notice wa s filed and irrespec tive of the filing ’s eff ects; and, in a ddition, (4) the status of discover y in the proce eding s.” See F erebe, 332 F .3d at 737. 22 r e s ponde d. U l t i m at el y, the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thatbo th si des nee ded add i t i on al t i m e t o pr e pa r e f

ortr i a l , s t a t i ng: [ i ] t ’ s a ppa r e ntt o the C our tba s e d on the a r gum e ntm a de by [ the gove r nm e nt ] , a nd ba s e d on the num e r ous s ubm i s s i ons by C ouns e l f or the D ef ense thatbo th si des nee d add i t i on al t i m e t o p roperl y pre pare thi s c a s e f

ortr i a l . I a m ve r y s t i ngy , a s y ou know , a boutgr a nt i ng a cont i nu ance bu tthe bo t t om l i ne i s j ust i ce . I a m thor oughl y c onvi nc e d tha tthe i nt e r e s tof j us t i c e s e r ve d by a c ont i nua nc e f

a routw e i ghs a ny i nt e r e s tof the publ i c a nd the D efen d an ti n a sp eed y tri al . S o as m u ch as I h at e t o co n t i n u e th i s case b e c a u s e , I c a n te ll y o u it’s w r e c k in g [ s ic ] h a v o c w ith m y s c h e d u le , I a m goi ng t o c ont i nue thi s c a s e unt i l A ugus tthe 29th. J. O rd er D en y i n g W i l k ’s M oti on to S tr i k e t h e D eath N oti ce O n A pri l 27 , 20 05 , the di stri ctcourtent er ed a tw enty- on e page order de ny i ng W i l k’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke the D e a th N ot i c e . T he di s tr i c tc our ta na l y z e d the t i m el i ness of the D ea th N ot i ce un der the fa ct ors l i st ed i n U ni t ed S t at es v. F er ebe, 332 F . 3d 722, 737 ( 4th C i r . 2003) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l k, 366 F . S upp. 2d 15 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 2 -8 3 (S . D . F l a. 2 0 0 5 ). F i rst , th e d i stri ctco u rtco n cl u d ed th atth e A u g u st 29 th t ri al dat e s ho ul d b e use d i n i t s t i m el i ness anal ys i s bec ause the tri al dat e w as c o n t i n u e d f

o rr e a s o n s u n r e l a t e d t o th e f i l i n g o f th e De a th No t i c e . I d . a t1 1 8 3 . As23

re as on s f or usi ng the A ug ust29 tri al dat e, the di stri ctcourtpo i nt ed t o t he i ss ues r a i s e d a tthe M a r c h 30 a nd A pr i l 1 s t a tus c onf e r e nc e s , i nc l udi ng the num e r ous unr e s ol ve d m ot i ons ; the f a c ttha tW i l k ha d noty e tdi s c l os e d hi s e xpe r t s ; a nd the po t ent i al for a D auberthear i ng on the go vernm ent ’ s e xp er t s on A pri l 11 , on e w ee k b e f o r e th e A p r il 1 8 tr ia l d a te . I d . a t 1 1 8 3 - 8 4 . S e c o n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t th e D e a th N o tic e w a s f ile d a r e a s o n a b le a m ountof

t i m e be f or e tr i a l be c a us e ove rs i x m onths e xi s t e d be tw e e n the f i l i ng of the D ea th N ot i ce and t he A ug ust29 th t ri al dat e. Id. at11 85 . T he di stri ctcourt f u r th e rd e te r m in e d th a t e v e n if it w e r e to u s e th e A p r il 1 8 th tr ia l d a te , th e D e a th N ot i ce w as fi l ed “ a r ea sonabl e t i m e bef ore the tri al ” bec ause the di stri ctcourthad gi ven t he go vernm entun t i l F ebruary 18 t o fi l e the D ea th N ot i ce and t he di stri ct c our t“ s e tthi s de a dl i ne be c a us e i tf ound i tw oul d pr ovi de D e f e nda ntnot i c e of

the go vernm ent ’ s i nt entt o see k t he death p enal ty a re as on abl e a m ou ntof t i m e bef ore tr i a l . ” I d. T hi r d, a s t o the na tur e of the c ha r ge s , the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha t“ [ t ] he hom i c i de c ha r ge s a r e r a the rba s i c ; onl y the obs truc t i on of j us t i c e a nd por nogr a phy a lle g a tio n s , w h ic h f

o r m p a r t o f

D e f e n d a n t’s in te n t, in v o lv e a n y d e g r e e o f in tr ic a c y . T hu s, tw o m on ths, l etal on e s i x m on ths, w ou l d b e s uffi ci entt i m e t o p re pare a d e f e n s e .” I d . a t 1 1 8 6 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o d e te r m in e d “th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t d id24

n o t in te n tio n a lly d e la y in f ilin g th e D e a th N o tic e .” I d . F our th, the di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha t“ the a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s m e r e l y tr a c k the [ de a th pe na l ty ] s t a tut e ’ s l a ngua ge a nd a r e r e f l e c t i ve of the s a m e f

a c t s tha ta r e i n the hom i c i de c ha r ge s the m s e l ve s . ” I d. a t1187. T he di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe defe nd ant“ coul d h ave a dequ at el y pre pare d h i s dea th d ef ense i n t w o m on ths, l et al on e s i x, gi ven t he nature of the aggravat i ng char ges a nd the pri or no t i ce prov i ded i n t he fi rs tS up er se di ng Indi ctm ent. . . . ” I d. T he di stri ctcourtfurther c on cl ud ed th a t th e r e w a s n o th in g to s u g g e s t th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t s h o u ld h a v e f ile d th e D e a th N ot i c e s oone r . I d. F i fth, as t o t he st atus of di sc ov ery, the di stri ctcourtfoun d “ thatdi sc ov ery w i l l un do ub t edl y be c om pl et ed l on g b ef ore the A ug ust29 tri al dat e. ” I d. E ven w i th the A pr i l 18 tr i a l da t e , the di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthi s f a c t ordi d not w e ig h in W ilk ’s f

a v o re n o u g h a s to o u tw e ig h th e o th e rf a c to r s . I t n o te d th a t W ilk

“ had yett o d i sc l ose a ny defe nse e xp er t s or produ ce any m ent al heal th evi dence e v e n th o u g h [ W ilk ] h a d c o n s u lte d a t le a s t a d o z e n e x p e r ts .” I d . F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtal so re l i ed on the fa ctthatthe go vernm enti ncl ud ed a l i stof st atut ory a gg ra vat i ng fa ct ors i n t he fi rs tsupers edi ng i nd i ctm enti n O ct ob er 2004, e ve n though i tw a s notr e qui r e d t o do s o. I d. a t1187- 88. B e c a us e the t i m el i ness of a D ea th N ot i ce i s a n i ss ue of fi rs ti m pres si on i n t hi s C ou rt , the di stri ctWe reviewjurisdictional questions, including the a ppeala bility of the de nial of a pretrial 16 motion to s trike a D eath Notice , de novo. United States v. Car twright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 25 c o u r t d e c id e d it w a s a ls o n e c e s s a r y to e n g a g e in a p r e ju d ic e a n a ly s is . I d . a t 1 1 8 9 . T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound tha tW i l k di d nots uf f e ra ny pr e

j udi c e f r om the t i m i ng of the F e brua r y 2005 D e a th N ot i c e be c a us e : ( 1) the D e a th N ot i c e w a s f i l e d w i thi n the de a dl i ne i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our t ; ( 2) de f e ns e c ouns e l ha d a l r e a dy r e c e i ve d the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s p e r m is s io n f o re le v e n e x p e r ts , s o m e o f w h ic h r e la te d s o le ly to pe na l ty pha s e i s s ue s ; ( 3) the de a th pe na l ty w a s a ddr e s s e d a te a c h of the s t a tus confere nces ; (4) the m agi stra t e j ud ge i ni t i al l y i nform ed appo i nt ed coun se l t o t re at thi s a s a de a th pe na l ty c a s e ; ( 5) the di s tr i c tc our ta nd the pa r t i e s ha d a l r e a dy d is c u s s e d w r itte n ju r o rq u e s tio n n a ir e s th a t in c lu d e d q u e s tio n s a d d r e s s in g th e d e a th pe na l ty ; a nd ( 6) the D e a th N ot i c e m e r e l y pa rr ot e d i nf or m a t i on tha tw a s a l r e a dy know n. I d. B a s e d on the s e f a c t or s , the di s tr i c tc our tf ur the rf ound tha tf

or “d e f e n s e c o u n s e l to n o w s u g g e s t s u rp r is e s tr ik e s th is C o u r t a s b e in g o p p o r tu n is tic a n d d is in g e n u o u s .” I d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d W ilk ’s m o tio n to s tr ik e th e D e a th N ot i c e . I d. a t1190. W i l k t i m e l y a ppe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Ju r i s d i c t i on W e f i rs texam i ne ou r j uri sdi ct i on t o h ea r W i l k’ s app ea l fr om the di stri ct c our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s tr i ke the D e a th N ot i c e . S e c t i on 1291 of 16(11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, __ U .S. __, 126 S. C t. 1116 (2006). 26 T i t l e 28 g ra nt s us j uri sdi ct i on ov erappeal s “ fr om al l fi nal deci si on s of the di stri ct c our t s of the U ni t e d S t a t e s . ” 28 U . S . C . § 1291. T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of Wi l k ’ s m o t i o n t o s tr i k e i s c l e a r l y a n o n - f i n a l , i n t e r l o c u t o r y d e c i s i o n . Ho we v e r , we ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o he a ra ppe a l s f r om non- f

i na l de c i s i ons tha tf

a l l w i thi n the “c o lla te r a l o r d e r ” d o c tr in e . S e e S e ll v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 3 9 U .S . 1 6 6 , 1 7 6 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 2174, 2182 ( 2003) ; C ohe n v. B e ne f i c i a l I ndus . L oa n C orp. , 337 U . S . 541, 546- 47, 69 S . C t . 1221, 1225- 26 ( 1949) . U nde rthe c ol l a t e r a l or de rdoc tr i ne , w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on ove ra n i nt e r l oc ut or y or de ri f i t“ ( 1) c onc l us i ve l y de t e r m i ne s the di s put e d que s t i on, ( 2) r e s ol ve s a n i m por t a nti s s ue c om pl e t e l y s e pa r a t e f r om the m er i t s of the ac t i on , and (3) i s e ff ec t i vel y unrevi ew abl e on app ea l fr om a f i nal j udgm e nt . ” S e l l , 539 U . S . a t176, 123 S . C t . a t2182 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T he F our th C i r c ui ti s the onl y othe rc i r c ui tt o c ons i de rw he the rthe de ni a l of a m ot i on t o s tr i ke a § 3593( a ) de a th pe na l ty not i c e i s r e vi e w a bl e unde rthe c o lla te r a l o r d e rd o c tr in e . S e e F e r e b e , 3 3 2 F .3 d a t 7 2 6 - 3 0 . I n F e r e b e , th e F o u r th C i r c ui tc onc l ude d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng a m ot i on t o s tr i ke the go vernm ent ’ s dea th n ot i ce w as re vi ew abl e a s a col l at er al order because s uch o rder s “a r e c o n c lu s iv e , c o lla te r a l to th e m e r its , a n d if w r o n g ly d e c id e d w ill ir r e p a r a b lyThe F ourth Circuit described the right cre ated in § 3593(a) as the “right not to be 17 convicted a

nd sentenc ed without adequate time to prepa re, but also the right not to st and trial for one’s lifeabsent the same[.] ” F erebe, 332 F .3d at 730. We also agreewith one cour t’s observation that “thereareprac tical re asons weighing ag ainst the post-trial assessment of whether the statute [§ 3593(a)] has been violated; to conduct a ca pital trial only

to strike the death-penalty notice af terwa rds would be a

colossal wasteof time, effor

t and expense for

both liti g ants and the c ourts.” United States v. McGriff, __ F . Supp. 2d __, __, 2006 WL979305, at *12 (E.D.N .Y. Apr. 13, 2006) . Our jurisdictional conc lusion is also i nformed by the fa ct that this case presents an 18 important issue of first impression completely separate f

rom the merits. F urthermore, g iven that we later conc lude that continuanc es of a trial ca n cureany

issue about whether a pa rticular § 3593(a) notice is untimely , thereshould be littl e nee d for f uture interlocutory

appeals as to a § 3 59 3( a) n oti c e . Wemay a lw ay s d e c lin ec oll ate ral orde r re view whe rethea pp e a l is c le arly frivolous. See In re N issan Motor Corp. Antitrust L itig., 552 F .2d 1088, 1095 (5th Cir. 1977) (notingthat an interloc utory appeal must address “‘ serious and unse ttled question(s)’ of law . . . that this court has not previously addre ssed and a

re pa rticularly appropriate for resolution as a c ollateral order” ) (c itation omitted); seealso Sell, 539 U.S. at 176, 123 S. C t. at 2182 (collate ral order “raises questions of c lear constitutional importanc e”) ; Cohen, 337 U.S. at 54 7, 69 S. Ct . at 12 26 (c oll ate ral orde r “pre se nts a se ri ou s a nd un se ttl e d q

ue sti on ” ); se eg e ne rally Bonner v. City

of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc) ( adoptingas binding prec edent all of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to the c lose of business on September 30, 1981) . Se c tio n 3 59 3( a) p ro vid e s, in re le va nt p art : 19 I f . . . the attorney

for the g overnme nt believes that the c ircumstance s of the

27 depri ve capi t al defe nd ant s of a n i m po rt antri gh t [. ] ” Id. at73 0; ac cord U ni t ed 17 S t at es v. B re eden, 36 6 F . 3d 36 9, 37 2-73 (4th C i r. 20 04 ). W e a gree w i th o ur si st er c ir c u it a n d c o n c lu d e th a t w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rW ilk ’s a p p e a l. 18 B . O b jecti v e R ea so n a b l en ess T he s ol e i s s ue on a ppe a l i s how t o a ppl y § 3593( a ) , w hi c h pr ovi de s tha tthe gove r nm e nts ha l l s e r ve , “ a r e a s ona bl e t i m e be f or e the tr i a l , ” not i c e t o the de f e nda nt s t a t i ng tha tthe de a th pe na l ty i s j us t i f i e d a nd l i s t i ng the a ggr a va t i ng f a c t or s . 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 3 ( a ) . S e c tio n 3 5 9 3 d o e s n o t s p e c if y w h a t c o n s titu te s “a r e a s o n a b le 19offense are such that a sentenc e of de ath is justified under this chapte r, the

attorney shall, a re asonabletime beforethe trial or be foreacc eptanc e by the cour t of a ple a of guilty , sign a

nd file with the cour

t, and serveon the def

endant, a notice-- (1) statingthat the g overnme nt believes that the c ircumstance s of the off ense a re su c h th at, i f t

hede fend ant i s c onvic te d, a se ntenc eof

de ath i s ju sti fi e d und e r t

his chapter and that the g overnme nt will seek the sentenc e of de ath; and (2) se tting for

th the ag grava

ting f actor or fa ctors that the g overnme nt, if the defendant is convicted, proposes to prove a s justifying a sentenc e of de ath. 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a). The interpretation of a

statute, such as § 3593, is a que stion of law subject to de novo 20 revie w. United States v. Searcy , 418 F.3d 1193, 1195 ( 11th Cir. 2005), cer t. denied, __ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct . 1107 (2006). When called upon to dete rmine re asonable ness in other c ontext s, our circuit has used an 21 ob je c tiv e re a so na

blene ss s tand ard . Se e , e .g ., Un ite d St ate s v . Gre e r, 44 0 F .3 d 1 26 7, 12 72 (1 1th Cir. 2006); Merc ado v. City of Orla ndo, 407 F.3d 1152, 1157 ( 11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Robinson, 336 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003). 28 tim e b e f o r e th e tr ia l.” T h is c a s e p r e s e n ts a n is s u e o f f ir s t im p r e s s io n in th is c ir c u it as t o w hati s “ a r ea sonabl e t i m e bef ore the tri al ” und er§ 3 59 3(a) . 20 W e f ir s t c o n c lu d e th a t th e a p p lic ab le te s t is o n e o f o b je c tiv e r e a s o n a b le n e s s . S e e B r e e d e n , 3 6 6 F .3 d a t 3 7 3 ( s ta tin g th a t “[ a ]n a ly s is o f w h e th e rth e r ig h t to r e a s ona bl e not i c e ha s be e n vi ol a t e d r e qui r e s a n i nqui r y i nt o the obj e c t i ve re as on abl enes s of the t i m i ng of the no t i ce ”) ; F er ebe, 33 2 F . 3d at73 1 (st at i ng that c our t s m us tc onduc t“ a pr e tr i a l i nqui r y i nt o the obj e c t i ve r e a s ona bl e ne s s of the no t i ce prov i ded” un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 59 3(a) ). F urther, t o d et er m i ne w hether 21 not i c e w a s f

i l e d a n obj e c t i ve l y r e a s ona bl e t i m e be f or e tr i a l , w e m us tc ons i de rtheThe totality of the c ircumstance s approa ch is consistent with how we ha ve determined 22 rea sonablene ss in a varie ty of other c ontext s in criminal case s. See, e.g ., Padg ett v. Donald, 401 F.3d 1273, 1280 ( 11th Cir. 2005); Conkli n v. Schofield, 366 F .3d 1191, 1204 (11th Cir. 2004); Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1252- 53 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Hunter, 291 F .3d 1302, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. B rundidg e, 170 F .3d 1350, 1352-53 (11th Cir. 1999); Bla

nco v. Single tary , 943 F.2d 1477, 1508 ( 11th Cir. 1991); United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1519 ( 11th Cir. 1991). We re c ognizethat th eF ourt h Ci rcuit g e ne rally a dh e re d to fo ur

artic ulate d f

a c tor s in 23 evaluating the reasona

ble timeliness of a De ath Notice. SeeFerebe , 332 F.3d at 737; Bre eden, 366 F.3d at 374. However, the F ourth Circuit also described those four fac tors as “a

mong othe r fac tors that may

appea r re levant[.] ” F erebe, 332 F .3d at 737. Our c onclusion that evaluating objective reasona

bleness re quires an unrestricted evaluation of all the circumstanc es is thus not inconsistent with the Fourth Circuit’s a pproac h.29 to ta lity o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , in c lu d in g , b u t n o t lim ite d to : ( 1 ) w h a t tr a n s p ir e d in 22 the c a s e be f

or e the f or m a l D e a th N ot i c e w a s f i l e d; ( 2) the pe r i od of

t i m e r e m a i ni ng f o rtr ia l a f te rth e D e a th N o tic e w a s f ile d ; ( 3 ) th e s ta tu s o f

d is c o v e r y a n d m o tio n s in the pr oc e e di ngs ; ( 4) the na tur e of the c ha r ge s i n the i ndi c t m e nt ; ( 5) the na tur e of the aggravat i ng fa ct ors c l ai m ed t o sup po rtthe death p enal ty; and (6) t he ant i ci pat ed na tur e of the de f e ns e , i f know n. 23 H a vi ng s pa r e d no e xpe ns e i n the f a c tua l a nd pr oc e dur a l hi s t or y di s c us s i on a bove , w e c a n now r e a di l y unde r t a ke the a na l y s i s of w he the rthe gove r nm e ntga ve r e a s ona bl e not i c e be f

or e the tr i a l . A s t o the f i r s tf a c t or , the e ve nt s de s c r i be d a bove d e m o n s tr a te th a t, f

r o m th e s ta r t, a ll p a r tie s k n e w th is w a s a lik e ly d e a th p e n a lty ca se , and t hu s, W i l k’ s c ou nsel , w ho had ext ensi ve capi t al cr i m es experi ence , began t o p re pare a dea th d ef

ense m on ths before the D ea th N ot i ce w as fi l ed on F ebruary 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 . F o re x a m p le , a s e a r ly a s S e p te m b e r1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , h e r e q u e s te d e x p a r te“ Who e ve r i s in dic te d f or tr e a so n o r o ther c a

pit a l c ri mesh a ll b ea llo we d to makehis full 24 defense by

counsel; and thecourt be forewhich the de fenda nt is to be tried, or a judg e thereof, shall promptly , upon the def endant' s reque st, assign 2 suc h counsel, of whom at least 1 shall be le arn e d in thelaw a pp lic a bleto c a pit a l c a se s, and

wh o s hall h avefre ea c c e ss t o th ea c c us e d at a ll rea sonable hours.”18 U.S.C. § 3005. 30 f unds f ori nve s t i ga t i on a nd m i t i ga t i on e xpe r t s r e l a t e d t o the de a th pe na l ty a nd ma d e a n e x p a r t e r e q u e s tf o ra s e c o n d d e a th - q u a l i f i e d c o u n s e l u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3005. W i l k’ s c ouns e l a l s o m ove d t o c ont i nue the tr i a l , or i gi na l l y c a l e nda r e d f or 24 N ove m be r1, 2004, due t o, a m ong othe rthi ngs , the pr oba bi l i ty tha tW i l k w oul d be subj ec tt o t he death p enal ty. T hen, on O ct ob er28 , 20 04 , W i l k’ s c ou nsel re qu es t ed a c ont i nua nc e of

the D e c e m be r13, 2004, tr i a l due t o di s c ove r y i s s ue s a nd a D ecem b er 1 3 m eet i n g w i th th e D ep art m en to f Ju st i ce reg ard i n g th e d eat h p en al ty. A ddi t i ona l l y , f

r om N ove m be r2004 t o J a nua r y 2005, W i l k r e que s t e d a nd w a s g r a n te d f

u n d in g f o re ig h t m o r e e x p e r ts , s o m e o f w h o m r e la te d s o le ly to pr e pa r a t i on f

orthe pe na l ty pha s e . A tthe J a nua r y 5, 2005, s t a tus c onf e r e nc e , the p a r tie s d is c u s s e d a ju r y q u e s tio n n a ir e c o n ta in in g q u e s tio n s o n c a p ita l p u n is h m e n t. T he st atut ory a gg ra vat i ng fa ct ors l i st ed i n t he F ebruary 18 , 20 05 , D ea th N ot i ce had a lr e a d y b e e n d is c lo s e d in th e O c to b e r2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t. I n s h o r t, be f or e the f or m a l F e brua r y 18 D e a th N ot i c e , W i l k’ s c ouns e l unde r t ook s i gni f i c a nt prepara t i on for a death d ef ense . A s t o the s e c ond f

a c t or , the t i m e i nt e r va l be tw e e n the D e a th N ot i c e a nd theSeveral district courts have a pplied the objective reasona bleness standa

rd and 25 conclude d that even le ss time is reasonable . Compare United States v. Ponder , 347 F. Supp. 2d 25 6, 27 0 ( E. D. Va . 2 00 4) (n oti c efi le d w ith in c ourt -i mpo se d f ili ngde a dlineand

a pp ro ximate ly four months before a possible trial date is rea sonable), a nd United States v. L e, 311 F . Supp. 2d 527, 534-35 (E.D .Va. 2004) (113 days’ notice is re asonable ), with McGriff, __ F . Supp. 2d at __, 20 06 WL97 93 05 , at *1 5- *1 7 ( c on c ludingthat tw e lveda y s’ no tic ewa s n ot o bje c tiv e ly rea sonable but grantinga continuanc e of thetrial date) , United States v. L e, 316 F . Supp. 2d 343, 34 6, 35 2- 55 (E .D .V a . 2 00 4) (1 13 da y s’ no tic esti ll o bje c tiv e ly re a so na ble , b ut a me nd e d D e ath Notice, c ontaining dif

ferent ag gravating f

actor s and filed ninety-four days before trial, wa s not objectively

rea sonable), a

nd United States v. Hatten, 276 F . Supp. 2d 574, 579 (S.D.W .Va. 2003) (sug g estingthat thirty-sixdays’ notice is unre asonable ). A f e w distri c t c ourt s h avee xami ne d whe ther t heamou nt o f timetheg ov e rnme nt t oo k to 26 mak e a dec is io n ab out whether t o p urs ue the d eath p enal ty was reas on abl e. S ee P on der, 34 7 F. 31 tr ia l w a s s ix m o n th s f

r o m F e b ru a r y 1 8 to A u g u s t 2 9 a n d w a s c le a r ly a d e q u a te to prepare a dea th d ef

ense i n t hi s c as e. T he go vernm ent ’ s D ea th N ot i ce w as obj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e not i ce on thi s bas i s a l on e. 25 W e r e j e c tW i l k ’ s a r g u me n tth a tA p r i l 1 8 , th e s c h e d u l e d tr i a l d a t e a tth e t i me the ori gi nal D ea th N ot i ce w as fi l ed, i s the ou t erl i m i tand t hatthe re l evanti nt er val i s onl y tw o m on ths fr om F ebruary 18 t o A pri l 18 . W i l k i gn ores the fa ctthat § 3593( a ) s t a t e s tha tthe D e a th N ot i c e m us tbe f i l e d “ a r e a s ona bl e t i m e be f or e the tri al , ” nota r ea sonabl e t i m e bef ore the dat e the tri al w as sc hedu l ed t o b egi n w hen th e D e a th N o tic e w a s f

o r m a lly f ile d . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 9 3 ( a ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . S ec t i on 35 93 (a ) does notst at e “ before the dat e of tri al , ” butra ther s t at es “ before th e tr ia l . . . .” S e e id . S im p ly p u t, th e r e is n o th in g in § 3 5 9 3 th a t r e s tr ic ts c o u r ts to c ount i ng onl y the da y s be tw e e n the D e a th N ot i c e a nd a s c he dul e d tr i a l da t e a tthe t i m e of the fi l i ng of the D ea th N ot i ce . 26Sup p. 2d

at 26 3- 65 ; H atte n, 27 6 F . Su pp . 2 d at 57 8. We re

je c t th at a pp ro a c h a s § 35 93 (a) i s designed to protec t the defendant from having to stand trial for his life without rea sonable notice and time to prepa

re adequate ly . The § 3593(a) re quirement doe s not obligateus to ex amine whether the g overnme nt’s ong oing de cisionmakingproce ss took too long. The proper a pproac h is to focus on whethe r the De ath Notice reasona bly g ave thedefendant ade quate time bef ore trial to prepa re a defense, not whethe r the g overnme nt rea sonably should have madea dec ision earlier than it did. In addition, there is no alleg ation in this case that the g overnme nt actually made a de c isi on but th e n in

ba d f a ithint e nti on a lly

de laye d a dv isi ngWilk

of its de c isi on

in o rd e r t o shorten Wilk’s preparation time. 32 W i l k a l s o a r gue s tha tw e s houl d notus e the A ugus t29 tr i a l da t e be c a us e the d istrict co u rt co n ti n u ed th e A p ril 1 8 trial d ate m er ely to cu re th e g o v er n m en t’ s u n ti m ely D ea th N o ti ce . W e r ejec t th is ar g u m en t fo r tw o re as o n s. F irst, W il k ’s c ont e nt i on i s nots uppor t e d by the r e c or d. R a the r , the r e c or d s how s tha t , a tthe A p r il 1 s ta tu s c o n f

e r e n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n tin u e d th e tr ia l d a te f r o m A p r il 1 8 to A u g u s t 2 9 d u e to th e e x is te n c e o f n u m e r o u s u n r e s o lv e d m o tio n s , th e f a c t th a t W ilk h ad n o t yet d isclo se d an y o f h is elev en ex p er ts to th e g o v er n m en t, an d W il k ’s req u estfo r a D au b erth eari n g o n th e g o v ern m en t ’ s ex p ert s. T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so e m pha s i z e d tha tthe gove r nm e ntha d f i l e d the D e a th N ot i c e by the F e brua r y 18 de a dl i ne s e tby the di s tr i c tc our ta nd tha tthi s N ot i c e w a s r e a s ona bl e e ve n i f the tr i a l w a s t o be he l d on A pr i l 18. T he r e c or d s uppor t s the gove r nm e nt ’ s pos i t i on thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otcont i nu e the tri al t o cure an unt i m el y not i ce . S e c o n d , e v e n if

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n tin u e d th e tr ia l to A u g u s t 2 9 , a s W ilk a r gue s , w hol l y ori n pa r tt o r e m e dy a D e a th N ot i c e tha tw oul d othe r w i s e be unt i m e l y w i thouta c ont i nua nc e ort o r e m ove a ny i s s ue a bouti t s t i m e l i ne s s , theIn support of his contention that the district cour t was motivated by

concern over

the 27 timing of the D eath Notice , Wil k stresses that duringthe April 1 status conferenc e, the g overnme nt expressed conc ern that the defense had f iled motions “claiming a

lack of notice,” and that Wilk

ha d n ot disc los e d h is e xpe rt wi tne sse s. “ I f t

his c a seis t

ri e d at a tim ein l ate summer o r s ome thi ngof

that natureor

fall, ”theg ov e rnme nt adde d, “ Ithink thede fens ewo uld cer tainly not have the a

bility to claim that they

aren’t ready

to try this case, that they

don’t have sufficie nt notice, of the ina bility to defe nd a death penalty matter.”Appellant’s B rief at 10; R15 at 10-12, 15. We re c ognizethat th eF ourt h Ci rcuit analy zed thetim eint e rv a l a s “ thepe ri od of tim e 28 remaining be foretrial, measured at the instant the D eath Noticewas filed.”Ferebe , 332 F.3d at 737. We do not find persuasive F erebe’s sug g estion that a cour t may not effe ctively

addre ss the concerns raised by

a motion to strike a Dea

th Notice as untimely

by postponing the trial. See id. at 737-38; cf

. id. at 741 (Nieme yer, J., dissenting) (“ [The majority] reads the statute to re quire a de ath p e nalty

no tic eto b eg iven a

re a so na bletim ebe fo rethedateof tria l . . . n ot b e fo rethetria l, as the statute provides.”). O ne district cour t in the Fourth Circuit has read F erebe nar rowly and stated that it was not re stricted to usingthe sche duled trial datewhen the D eath Noticewas filed “ if thec ourt kn ow s, and

thepa rtie s arere a so na

bly awa re , th at th ematter i s n ot ac tually proce edingto trial on that date.”Ponder, 347 F . Supp. 2d at 267. 33 di s tr i c tc our ta c t e d pr ope r l y . S e c t i on 3593 i s s i l e nta s t o the r e m e dy f ors uc h a 27 D ea th N ot i ce . N on ethel es s, the ob vi ou s purpo se of the § 3 59 3(a) no t i ce r e q u ir e m e n t is to m a k e s u r e a d e f e n d a n t h a s a d e q u a te tim e to p r e p a r e f o ra d e a th de f e ns e . C ont i nui ng the tr i a l a f t e rthe D e a th N ot i c e i s f i l e d doe s notunde r m i ne but r a the rpr e s e r ve s the de f e nda nt ’ s s t a tut or y r i ghtnott o s t a nd tr i a l f orhi s l i f e w i thout re as on abl e not i ce of the go vernm ent ’ s i nt entt o see k t he death p enal ty. W here a di stri ctcourtdet er m i nes thatthe D ea th N ot i ce w as fi l ed ata t i m e w hen ei ther party, part i cul ar l y the defense , w ou l d rea sonabl y be unp re pare d for a c api t al tri al on the previ ou sl y s chedul ed tri al dat e, a c on t i nu ance of the tri al i s app ropri at e. 28 T hata di stri ctcourtcont i nu es an ea rl i ersc hedu l ed tri al dat e f or a m urder ca se af

t er a D e a th N o tic e is f

ile d in o r d e rto m a k e s u r e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l h a s a d e q u a teIndeed, “ [t ]he filing of a motion to s trike the de ath notice a s untimely is an obvious 29 indication that the def

endant ne eds more time to preparefor trial.” United States v. Pepin, 367 F . Su pp . 2 d 3 15 , 3 19 (E .D .N .Y . 2 00 5) (add re ssinglanguag ein 2 1 U .S. C. § 84 8(h) (1 ) i de nti c a l to § 3593(a) ). We expressly

do not rea ch the issue of

whether the Death Notice would havebeen untimely if the trial datehad re mained April 18 and not been c ontinued. Rather, e ven assuming arguendo that the De ath Notice might have be en other wise problematic without the continuance , wepo int out th at th ec ontin

ua nc ee a sily c ure d a ny po te nti a l prob le m. The g overnme nt argues that Wilk’s April 1 statement that he wa s prepa red f or a non- 30 capital trial on April 18 is inconsistent with hi s repe ated requests for continuance s and the outstanding motions and discove ry matters. Theg overnme nt emphasizes that Wi lk had more than fifty motions pending a

nd neede d a continuanc e of theApril 18 trial even if it was a noncapital trial. We need not address that issue as wedo not measurethe time interval usingthe date f or which trial was mere ly schedule d at the time the De ath Notice w as filed.

34 p r e p a r a tio n tim e f

o ra n o w - r e q u ir e d d e a th d e f e n s e is to b e c o m m e n d e d e v e n if in the process i tcure s w hatm i gh thave ot herw i se been an un t i m el y D ea th N ot i ce . 29 F in a lly , w e p o in t o u t p r a c tic a l r e a s o n s w h y a llo w in g c o n tin u a n c e s is approp ri at e. Iti s r ou t i ne for tri al dat es t o chang e i n m urder ca se s, and even m ore so i n capi t al ca se s, j ustas i tdi d h er e. Indeed, the tri al dat e i n t hi s c as e m ov ed tw i ce atW i l k’ s r equest : fr om N ov em ber 1, 20 04 , t o D ec em ber 13, 20 04 , and t hen t o A pr i l 18, 2005. W he n the di s tr i c tc our tc ont i nue d the tr i a l f r om D e c e m be r13, 2004, t o onl y A pr i l 18, 2005, W i l k s t i l l obj e c t e d, s t a t i ng tha the c oul d notbe r e a dy ev en b y M ay 2 0 0 5 i f th e g o v ern m en tso u g h tth e d eat h p en al ty. 30 D ur i ng thi s s a m e t i m e pe r i od, the gove r nm e ntc onduc t e d a de l i be r a t e a nd ful l consi dera t i on of w hether thi s m urder c as e s ho ul d b ec om e a death p enal ty c as e, i nc l udi ng m e e t i ng w i th W i l k’ s c ouns e l i n S e pt e m be ra nd D e c e m be r2004 a boutOne c ourt has noted that “ cre dible statistics disclose that the averag e interval betwee n 31 death- penalty

elig ibility

and the f iling of a death- penalty

notice is approximately

eight months.” Mc Grif f, __ F . Su pp . 2 d at __ , 2 00 6 WL

97 93 05 , at *1 5 ( c iti ngstatis tic s d e ri ve d f ro m r aw d ata compiled by

the Capital Def

ense N etwork) . The time here wa s six months.

35 th a t is s u e . T h a t th e g o v e r n m e n t’s d e c is io n m a k in g p r o c e s s a f f o r d s a n o p p o r tu n ity f ori nputby the de f

e nda ntthr ough c ouns e l i s a good thi ng, buti ta dds t o the p r o tr a c te d n a tu r e o f

th e d e c is io n a l p r o c e s s . W h ile th a t p r o tr a c te d p r o c e s s is 31 on go i ng , the di stri ctcourt s, un ders t andabl y, endeavor t o m ov e thei r m urder ca se s a l ong by s e t t i ng e a r l y tr i a l da t e s tha tm a y be r e a l i s t i c i f the gove r nm e ntde c i de s not to s e e k th e d e a th p e n a lty , b u t m a y b e c o m e u n r e a lis tic w h e n th e D e a th N o tic e is fi l ed and t he ca se becom es a dea th p enal ty c as e w i th cer t ai nt y. A rul e that m ea sure s the t i m e i nt er val fr om the dat e the D ea th N ot i ce i s f i l ed t o t he sc hedu l ed d a te o f tr ia l a t th e tim e o f

th a t f ilin g u n d u ly r e s tr ic ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s a b ility to m anage i t s c as es and i s s i m pl y notre qu i re d b y § 35 93 (a ). A l l ow i ng cont i nu ance s a f t e rthe D e a th N ot i c e i s f i l e d ( 1) pe r m i t s the gove r nm e ntt o r e c e i ve i nputf r om de f e ns e c ouns e l a nd t o m a ke the de a th pe na l ty de c i s i on w i th f ul l a nd c a ut i ous del i bera t i on , w hi l e s t i l l (2) a cc om pl i shi ng the go al of § 3 59 3(a) t o ass ure that de f e nda nt s ha ve a de qua t e t i m e t o pr e pa r e a de f e ns e t o the de a th pe na l ty a nd do not s t a nd tr i a l f

orthe i rl i f

e w i thoutr e a s ona bl e not i c e . D i s tr i c tc our t s s houl d ha ve the abi l i ty t o settri al dat es t o m ov e the ca se al on g w hi l e i ti s a m ore s i m pl e m urder c a s e butthe n c ont i nue the tr i a l da t e i f a nd a f t e ra D e a th N ot i c e i s a c tua l l y f i l e d.36

O ur det er m i nat i on thatthe cont i nu ance w as prop erand t he t i m e i nt er val b etw een th e D eat h N o t i ce an d th e tri al w as si x m o n th s al l o w s u s t o d i sp en se qui c kl y w i th the thi r d, f our th, a nd f

i f th f a c t or s . A s t o the thi r d f a c t or , s i x m onths w as no ton l y a n o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e not i ce t o com pl et e the re m ai ni ng di sc ov ery a nd m ot i ons , i tw a s m or e tha n e nough t i m e . W i l k s tr e s s e s the f our th f a c t or– the na tur e of the c ha r ge s i n the i ndi c t m e nt– a nd tha tthe ni ne t e e n- pa ge s e c ond s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t c o n ta in s s e v e n c o u n ts , s p a n s a b r o a d p e r io d o f tim e ( n e a r ly four ye ar s) , i nv ol ves s er i ou s a nd l engt hy al l egat i on s, and i dent i fi es evi dence ( pa r t i c ul a rc om put e re vi de nc e ) r e qui r i ng e xpe r ta c c e s s a nd r e vi e w . T he i ndi c t m e nt al so co n t ai n s an o b stru ct i o n o f j u st i ce co u n ti n v o l v i n g j u d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s al m o st f oury e a r s e a r l i e ra s w e l l a s a c ountof pos s e s s i on of

c hi l d por nogr a phy . E ve n s o, w e c o n c lu d e th a t, g iv e n th e s ix - m o n th p r e p a r a tio n p e r io d , th e th ir d a n d f o u r th f a c to r s in th is c a s e b o th w e ig h in f a v o ro f th e g o v e r n m e n t. A s t o th e f

i f th f a c t o r , th e O c t o b e r2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , i n d i c t me n tl i s t e d th e s a me s t a tut or y a ggr a va t i ng f

a c t or s a s di d the D e a th N ot i c e . F ur the r , a s not e d by the d is tr ic t c o u r t, th e a g g r a v a tin g f a c to r s m e r e ly tr a c k e d th e la n g u a g e o f th e s ta tu te . W h i l e th e F eb ru ary 1 8 D eat h N o t i ce ad d ed so m e n o n -st atu t o ry ag g rav at i n g fact o rs, thos e t oo w e r e s tr a i ght f orw a r d. T hus , the f

i f th f a c t ordoe s nota i d W i l k. T hi s l ea ves the nature of the defens e. W e purpo se ful l y have notdesc ri bedWe also re je c t Wilk ’s argument t

hat § 3 59 3( a) re qu ir e s p e rs on a l serv ic eof theDe ath 32 No tic e . Se eF e d. R. C ri m. P . 4 9(b) (“ Whe n th e serule s o r a c ourt orde r re qu ir e s o r p e rm its serviceon a par

ty represente d by

an attorney , servicemust be made on the attorney instead of the par ty , unless the cour

t orders othe rwise.” ). 37 the e l e ve n e xpe r t s f

orw hom the de f

e ns e obt a i ne d f

undi ng i n e x pa r t e m ot i ons b e f o r e th e De a th No t i c e wa s f i l e d . Gi v e n th e e x p a r t e n a tu r e o f th e m o t i o n s , we a r e a ls o r e lu c ta n t to d e s c r ib e th e n a tu r e o f th e p o te n tia l d e f

e n s e s r e v e a le d th e r e in . W e do c onc l ude , how e ve r , tha ts i x m onths i s c l e a r l y m or e tha n s uf f i c i e ntt i m e no m a t t e rw ha ta ppr oa c h the de f e ns e de c i de s t o t a ke . T hus , thi s f a c t ora l s o doe s not he l p W i l k. I n s um , c ons i de r i ng a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s of the c a s e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe g o v e r n m e n t p r o v id e d o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n a b le n o tic e o f its d e c is io n to s e e k th e d e a th p e n a lty a n d o f

th e a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s c la im e d to ju s tif

y th e d e a th p e n a lty . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d W ilk ’s m o tio n to s tr ik e th e D e a th N o tic e . I I I . CONCL US I ON F orthe a bove r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of W i l k’ s m ot i on t o stri ke the go vernm ent ’ s D ea th N ot i ce . 32 AF F I RME D.