T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding pr ece dentexceptunderthe doctrines of * law o f th e c a s e , res ju dica ta and col l aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favor s the cit ati on of order s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cit ed under the term s and conditi ons of 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United State s C ourt o f Appe als Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e19,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. J ON KE NT RE D E L K, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 6336 ( W . D . O kl ahoma) ( D . Ct . N o. 05 - CR - 36 - F)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui t Judg es. Seven day s befor e J ohn K ent R ed El k’ s t r i al for t he murde r of hi s gi r l fr i end w a s to b e g in , the g o v e rn m e n t n o tifie d h is a tto rn e y s it w o u ld b e p re se n tin g n e w ly di s cover ed expe r t t es t i m ony . R ed El k fi l ed a mot i on obj ect i ng t o t he admi s s i on of t hi s t es t i m onyor , i n t he al t er nat i ve, r eques t i ng a cont i nuance . A ft er a hea r i ng, th e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted , in p a rt, R e d E lk ’s m o tio n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t filed th is i nt er l ocut or y appea l cl ai m i ng t he di s t r i ct cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n excl udi ng a p o rt io n o f

its e x p e rt te s tim o n y . E x e rc is in g ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . §Secti on 3731 al l ow s an appe alfroman orders uppr es s ing evi dencein a crim inal 2 tri alw hen the appe ali s m ade be fore doubl e j eopardyatt ache s . T he U nit ed St ates A ttorneym us tal s o certi fyto the di s tri ctcourtthatthe appe ali s notforthe purpos e of d e layan dth e e v id e n c e is as ub s tantia l p ro o f o f f a c t m ate ri a l inth e p ro c e e d in g . See U nited Statesv. M

avroko rdatos, 933 F. 2d 843, 846 ( 10th C ir . 1991) (hol ding order e x c lu d in g e v i d e n c e a s ad i s c o v e rys an c ti o nwa s anap p e a l ab l e o rd e rp ur s u antto 1 8 U. S . C. § 3731) . W hi l e ourcas es s ugges tw e more orl es s acc eptthe governm ent ’ s cl aimthatthe e v id e n c e is n e e d e d , th e g o v e rn m e nt d o e s n o t h av e c art e b lan c h e to b ri n g s u c hanap p e a l. T h is c a s e is o nth e m arg in .

- 2- 3 7 3 1 , w e A F F IR M .

2 I . B ackgr ound A t appr oxi m at el y 5 a. m . on J anuar y7, 2005, R ed El k cal l ed t he 911 ce nt er i n L aw t on, O kl ahoma t o r epor t hi s gi r l fr i end w as not br eat hi ng. Sher i ff’ s deput i es arrived at R ed E lk’s reside n ce an d d isco v ere d a d ec ea sed w o m an , R eg ina D u p ler, l ay i ng on t op of t he bed i n t he mast er bedr oom . A ft er det er m i ni ng t he r es i dence w as l ocat ed on I ndi an l and, t he deput i es not i fi ed t he C om anche N at i on Pol i ce D epar t m ent , w hos e off i cer s ar r i ved on t he s cene s hor t l yt her eaf t er . I n t ur n, t hey not i fi ed t he Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on ( FB I ) . U pon her ar r i val at t he s cene , FB I Speci al A gent D ecke r i nt er vi ew ed R ed El k. I ni t i al l y , R ed El k s t at ed D upl er had comm i t t ed s ui ci de. H e expl ai ned he had fa l l en as l eep on t he l i vi ng r oom couch a nd w hen he a w akene d, he w ent t o t he bedr oom . T her e, he found D upl er l ay i ng on her r i ght s i de on t he fl oor byt he bed. She had a pl as t i c bag ove r herhead, duct - t aped a r ound her neck. H er hands and fee t w er e al s o duct - t aped t oget her . R ed El k s t at ed he us ed hi s buck kni fe t o cut- 3-

t he t ape f

r om her hands and l egs and r i pped open t he bag t o appl yemer gency re su sc itatio n , b u t so o n re a lize d th e re w a s n o th in g h e c o u ld d o . B e c a u se h e d id n o t h a v e a te le p h o n e , h e im m e d ia te ly w e n t to h is n e ig h b o r’ s h o u s e to c a ll 9 1 1 . H e th e n lif

te d M s . D u p le r’ s b o d yo n to th e b e d a n d c o v e re d h e r w ith a b la n k e t. R ed El k vol unt ar i l y acc om pani ed A gent D ecke r t o t he FB I ’ s L aw t on offi ce for fur t her ques t i oni ng. H e s t at ed he a nd D upl er had bee n l i vi ng t oget her s i nce N ovember 2004. R ed El k s ai d s he had be en depr es s ed bec aus e herm ot her comm i t t ed s ui ci de t w o y ear s ear l i er and oft en t al ked t o hi m about comm i t t i ng su icid e h e rse lf. H e su sp e c ted sh e h a d b e e n d rin k in g a lco h o l th a t d a y , an a c tiv ity forbi dden byt he medi cat i on s he w as t aki ng. D ur i ng t he i nt er vi ew , A gent D ecke r r ece i ved a c al l i nfor m i ng her t he emer gencym edi cal t echni ci an had e s t abl i s hed t he t i m e of de at h, w hi ch t i m i ng i ndi cat ed R ed El k w as not bei ng t r ut hful . A ft er b e in g c o n f

ro n ted w ith th a t in fo rm a tio n , R e d E lk e v e n tu a llyw a s “ re a d yto tell w h a t r e a lly h a p p e n e d .” (A p p x . a t 3 7 .) H e sta ted M s. D u p ler h a d o f ten talk e d a b o u t su icid e a n d a sk e d h im to h e lp her . H e deni ed herpr i or r eques t s beca us e he l oved her . H ow ever , he knew s he w a s in g re a t em o tio n a l p a in d u e to h e r m o th e r’s su icid e a n d “ sh e d id n o t w a n t to b e in th is w o rld a n y m o re .” (A p p x . at 3 8 ) H e a g re e d to h e lp h e r. A c c o rd in g to R e d E lk , D u p le r t a p e d h e r o w n fe e t to g e th e r a n d p u t a p la s tic b a g o v e r h e r h e a d . H e sta ted sh e “ h a d so m e k in d o f w h ite to w e l, bu t h e w a s n o t su re w h a t sh e d idT hroughoutthe procee dings the w hit e tow elw as r efe rr ed to as a “tow el , ” a 3 “ w a s hc lo th ” o r a“ c lo th .” F o r c o n s is te n c y , w e w ill r e f e r t o it a s a“ to w e l.”

- 4- w i t h i t . H e [t hought ] s he m ay have put i t i n her m out h. ” ( I d. ) D upl er t hen 3 at t empt ed t o t ape t he bag a r ound her neck, but coul d not get i t t i ght l ycl os ed beca us e t he t ape r avel ed and c aught i n her hai r . M s . D upl er as ked R ed El k t o get her anot her bag. W hi l e r et r i evi ng a s econd ba g, R ed El k got a l adderand t hr ew t he fi r s t bag i nt o t he at t i c cr aw l s pace i n t he gar age. W hen he r et ur ned t o t he bedr oom w i t h t he s econd ba g, he w at ched D upl er s ucce s s ful l yt ape i t s hut ar ound her neck. H e t hen compl i ed w i t h her r eques t t hat he t ape he r hands behi nd her back s o s he coul d not fi ght . R ed El k t hen l eftt he r oom t o avoi d hear i ng her stru g g le. H e re tu rn e d to th e b e d ro o m in th e m o rn in g a n d th e su b se q u e n t ev e n ts w ere as h e h ad stat ed ea rl ier. O n F e b ru a ry 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , the g o v e rn m e n t in d icte d R e d E lk w ith w ill f u l, del i ber at e, m al i ci ous and pr emedi t at ed murde r i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 1111( a) and 1153. Fr om t he out s et , t he par t i es r ecogni zed t he ca s e w oul d be un usual because o f i t s “expe rt -i ntensi ve n at ure. ” (A pp x. at 22 9. ) Th e cou rtfi rs t hel d an i n ca m era hear i ng w i t h R ed El k’ s couns el and, a fe w day s l at er , hel d an i n ca m era h e a rin g w ith A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y(A U S A ) M c C a m p b e ll, t he l ead a t t or neyfor t he gover nm ent . T he mat t er s di s cl os ed i n t hes e hea r i ngs m ade i t even mor e obvi ous t hat exper t anal y s i s of t he for ens i c evi dence and t he r es ul t i ng exper t opi ni ons w oul d be pi vot al for bot h t he pr os ecut i on and t heI n D aubertv. MerrellD ow P harm aceutical s, I nc. , the Supr eme C ourthel d the 4 F e d e r a lRu l e s o f

E v i d e n c e “ a s s i g nto th e tri a lj u d g e th e t a s ko f e n s urin g th atane xp e rt 's t es tim onyboth r es t s on a rel i abl e foundati on and i s r el evantto the tas k athand. ” 509 U . S . 5 7 9 , 5 9 7 (19 9 3 ).

- 5- defe ns e. G i ven t hat a r eal i s t i c as s es s m ent of t he ant i ci pat ed expe r t w or k r evea l ed a nee d for addi t i onal t i m e, t he di s t r i ct cour t ent er ed a s chedul i ng or der r equi r i ng su b m iss io n o f

e x p e rt re p o rts b y Ju ly1 , 2 0 0 5 , su p p lem e n tal e x p e rt re p o rts b yJu ly 15, 2005, and D au bert m ot i ons and r es pons es byJ ul y8 and J ul y22, 2005, 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y. B ot h s i des aggr es s i vel y pur s ued pr et r i al i nves t i gat i ons and fi l ed numer ous p re -tria l m o tio n s. T h e g o v e rn m e n t su b m itt e d th e re p o rt o f O k lah o m a S tate M ed ical E x am iner, D r. Jeffre y G o fto n , d ated M arc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 . A n att ac h ed ch art of a femal e fi gur e ( r out i nel y us ed i n s uch r epor t s ) document ed adhe s i ve mat er i al on D upl er ’ s ar m s , but s how ed no adhe s i ve on herl egs . T he s um m ar yof t he ex terna l auto p sy ex am ination w as silent as to an yfib ers w it h in M s. D u p ler’s m out h. T he r epor t concl uded t he ca us e of de at h w as as phy xi at i on. D r . G oft on opi ned: I t i s fel t t hat i t i s hi ghl y unl i kel yt hat M s . D upl er coul d have t aped her ar m s behi nd her back, and s ubs equent l yas phy xi at ed her s el f by p lac in g a b a g a n d tap in g it aro u n d h e r n e c k b yh e rse lf. T h e o p p o site s cena r i o of t he dec edents ecur i ng a pl as t i c bag ove r her head a nd su b se q u e n tlytap in g h e r a rm s b e h in d h e r b a c k is a lso e x tre m e ly unl i kel y , i f not i m pos s i bl e. T her efor e, i t i s fel t t hat t he manner of d e a th in th is c a s e is b e s t c la s s ifie d a s a h o m ic id e . (A p p x . a t 4 4 .)- 6-

A U SA M cC ampbel l w i t hdr ew as at t or neyof r ecor d on M ay2, 2005. T he s ame day , A U SA C oat s ent er ed hi s appea r ance . T r i al w as s chedul ed for Sept ember 11, 2005. O n A ugus t 10, 2005, t he gover nm ent s ent t he t ow el and t he d u c t tap e fo r te stin g . T h e m a ter ials w e re re c e iv e d a t th e F B I’s fa c ili tyin Q uant i co, V i r gi ni a, on A ugus t 12, 2005. T he s ame day , t he gover nm ent m oved for a cont i nuance of t he t r i al dat e. O n A ugus t 17, 2005, t he di s t r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he gover nm ent ’ s m ot i on and r es chedul ed t r i al for t he O ct ober 11, 2005 t r i al s es s i on. Shor t l yt her eaf t er , A U SA Sengel ent er ed hi s appea r ance for t he g o v e rn m e n t. A ft er r evi ew i ng t he ca s e fi l es , A U SA Sengel r eques t ed fur t her t es t i ng of t he t ow el for t he pr es ence of m ucous or s al i va. D ur i ng t he w eek of Sept ember 14, 2005, J ul i e A nn K i dd, an FB I D N A anal y s t , or al l yr epor t ed t o A U SA Sengel t hat no bl ood or s emen w as found on t he t ow el and t ape s ampl es . T hi s i nfor m at i on w as cons i s t ent w i t h her l at er w r i t t en r epor t . She al s o or al l yr epor t ed t her e w as no m ucous or s al i va, but i nfor m at i on about anys uch t es t i ng, r es ul t s or concl us i ons w as not i ncl uded i n her w r i t t en r epor t s ubm i t t ed t o t he gover nm ent on Sept ember 2 1 . O n S ep tem b er 2 8 , A U S A S en g el m et w it h D r. G o fto n to d iscu ss K idd ’s fi ndi ngs . Fi ve day s aft er t hi s m eet i ng, on O ct ober 3, 2005, t he gover nm ent s ent R ed El k not i ce byfac s i m i l e at t achi ng K i dd’ s exami nat i on of t he t ow el and t he t ape. T he gover nm ent ’ s coverl et t er s t at ed: A n a ltern a te lig h t so u rc e w a s u se d d u rin g th e e x a m in a tio n a n d d idM s . K i dd w as notavai l abl e forexaminati on unti ll aterin the w eek. 5

- 7- not gl ow on t he adhe s i ve s i de of t he t ape oron ei t her s i de of t he t ow el . . . . T he al t er nat e l i ght s our ce di d not det ectanys emen, s al i va, m ucous , or ot her fl ui ds . M s . K i dd i s of t he opi ni on t hat t he D N A detect ed is probab l y ski n cell s. F u rth e r, I a n ticip a te th a t D r. Je ff re yG o f to n , the O k lah o m a S tate M e d ica l E x a m in e r, w ill o p in e th a t th e a b se n c e o f a d h e siv e o r d u c tt ape f i ber s on t he defendant ’ s kni fe, t he abs ence of adhe s i ve fr om t he vi ct i m ’ s ankl es , t he appa r ent abs ence of s al i va or m ucous fr om t he w ash cloth , an d the a b sen ce o f a n yfib ers d etec ted in the v ict im ’s m out h ar e i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he defendant ’ s ver s i on of how R egi na D upl er di ed. ( A ppx. at 61. ) R ed El k i m m edi at el yfi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne r eques t i ng t he di s t r i ct cour t t o excl ude t hi s t es t i m onyor , i n t he al t er nat i ve, gr ant a cont i nuance . T h e g o v ern m en t op p o sed this m o ti o n an d o bjected to a c o n ti n u an ce . T h e c o u rt hear d ar gum ent on O ct ober 5, 2005, but r es er ved i t s r ul i ng on t he admi s s i on of t es t i m onyunt i l aft er t he voirdir e of the exp ert s. T he cour t r econve ned on O ct ober 11, 2005, t he daybefor e t r i al , t o al l ow t he par t i es t o exami ne D r . G oft on r egar di ng hi s pr opos ed t es t i m ony . T he di s t r i ct 5 cour t addr es s ed fourcat egor i es of t es t i m ony : 1) “t he abs ence of . . . duct t ape fi ber s on t he kni fe; ” 2) “t he abs ence of adhe s i ve on M s . D upl er ’ s ankl es ; ” 3) “t he absenc e of sali va o r m uco us on t he tow el ; ” and 4) “t he ab sence o f fi bers i n M s. D upl er ’ s m out h. ” ( A ppx. at 157- 60. ) A s t o t he fi r s t cat egor y , t he gover nm ent r et r act ed i t s r eques t t o ques t i on D r . G oft on on t he condi t i on of t he kni fe. T he d istric t co u rt a g re e d D r. G o f to n ’s te stim o n yo n th is s u bjec t w o u ld b e o u tsid e h is- 8-

ar ea of exper t i s e and, i n addi t i on, he had notexami ned t he kni fe. R egar di ng t he l ack of adhes i ve on M s . D upl er ’ s ankl es ( as oppos ed t o fi ndi ng adhes i ve on her a rm s), th e d istric t co u rt ru led D r. G o f to n w o u ld b e a llo w e d to sta te h is obs er vat i ons and hi s expec t at i on, bas ed on hi s exper i ence as a pat hol ogi s t , t hat adhes i ve r es i due w oul d be on herl egs as w el l i f, i n fac t , t he s ame duct t ape us ed o n h er leg s h ad b ee n u sed o n h er a rm s. H o w ev er, t h e c o u rt ref u sed to let D r. G o f to n e x p o u n d f

u rth e r o n th e su bjec t. T he cour t excl uded t he t hi r d cat egor yof t es t i m ony— t hat t he l ack of s al i va or m ucous on t he t ow el i ndi cat ed t he t ow el w as not nearher m out h w hen D upl er as phy xi at ed. T he cour t found D r . G oft on’ s pr opos ed t es t i m onyw as “bas ed on var i abl es s uffi ci ent t o m ake i t t he s ubj ectof expe r t t es t i m ony , and undert he sc h e d u le it sim p ly[ c a m e ] to o late .” H o w e v e r, D r. G o f to n w o u ld b e a llo w e d to t est i fy regar ding his personal obser vati on t hat he detect ed n o fibers i n M s. D upl er ’ s m out h. T he cour t r es er ved r ul i ng on w het her t hi s t es t i m onycoul d be expande d t o i ncl ude hi s opi ni on t hat t hi s obs er vat i on w as i ncons i s t ent w i t h R ed E l k’s ver si on of the even t s. T he nextday , t he gover nm ent fi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on r eques t i ng the e x clud ed p o rt ion o f D r. G o fto n ’s t esti m o n yb e a ll o w ed in the g o v ern m en t’ s cas e- i n- chi ef. W hi l e t he cour t cons i der ed t he mot i on, j ur ys el ect i on w as conduct ed. Pr i or t o t he j ur y bei ng s w or n, t he gover nm ent fi l ed i t s not i ce of app eal , cert i fi cat i on and request for a st ay of the proceed i ng s. B ased on t heseRule 16(d)( 2) provi des: 6 If ap artyf a ils to c o mp lyw ithth is ru le, th e c o urt m ay : ( A ) orderthatpartyto perm itthe di s coveryorins pecti on; s peci fyit s tim e, p lac e , an dm ann e r; an dp re sc rib e o th e r ju st te rm s an dc o n d iti o n s; (B ) g rant a c o ntinu an c e ; (C ) pro h ibitthat p artyfro mintro du cing the un d iscl o sedev iden ce ; or (D ) enter anyotherorder that i s j ustun der the circum stances.

- 9- fi l i ng s, t he d i st ri ct cou rtrel uctant l ydis m i ssed t he jur yand st ay ed the case p e n d in g th is in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. I I . D i s cus s i on “R ul e 16( d) ( 2) of t he Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e gi ves t he di s t r i ct cour t br oad di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng s anct i ons on a par t yw ho fai l s t o compl yw i t h a di s cover yor der . ” Uni t ed St at es v. Wi cke r , 8 4 8 F . 2 d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). 6 I n r evi ew i ng w het her a di s t r i ct cour t has abus ed t hi s di s cr et i on bypr ohi bi t i ng t he i nt r oduct i on of evi dence , w e ar e gui ded bys ever al fac t or s , i ncl udi ng but not l i m i t ed t o: “( 1) t he r eas ons t he gover nm ent del ay ed pr oduci ng t he r eques t ed m a ter ials , inc lu d in g w h e th e r o r n o t th e g o v e rn m e n t ac ted in b a d fa ith w h e n it fai l ed t o compl y w i t h t he di s cover yor der ; ( 2) t he ext ent of pr ej udi ce t o t he defe ndant as a r es ul t of t he gover nm ent ' s del ay ; and ( 3) t he fe as i bi l i t yof cur i ng t he pr ej udi ce w i t h a cont i nuance . ” Id . at 1061. H ow ever , “t hes e t hr ee fact or s [ ] m er el ygui de t he di s t r i ct cour t i n i t s cons i der at i on of s anct i ons ; t heyar e not i nt ended t o di ct at e t he bounds of t he cour t ' s di s cr et i on. ” Id . G ener al l y , “i f a sanct i on i s i m po sed, i t shou l d b e t he leas t severe sanct i on t hat w i l l accom pli shT he governm entr ai s es s everali s s ues and s et s forth argum ent s on appea lthat 7 w ere notpr es ented to the di s tri ctcourt . T he governm entconce des itdi d nots upplythe r e l e v antr e p o rt s an de xp e c t e dt e s timo nyo f M s . Ki d dan dDr . Go f

to nwi th inth e time des i gnated bythe pretri alorder , butargues the vi ol ati on of a di s coveryorderi s not equival entto a Rul e 16 vi ol ati on. A ccording to the governm ent , the courtdoes nothave the authori tyunderRul e 16 “to pr eclude the governm entfromdevel oping additi onal expertt es tim onypri orto tri albys etting a di s coverydeadl ine forexpertt es tim onyand enforcing itw ith the s uppr es s i on s ancti on. ” (A ppel l ant ’ s R eplyB r . at4. ) T he g o v ernm en t con tend s itm u st be a Ru le 16 v iolati o n , n o t m ere lya v iolati o no f th e c o urt ’s sc h e du lin g o rd e r, to ju stif yth e san c tio no f

e x c lu d in g e v id e n c e . B e c au se it d idn o t v io late Rul e 16, the governm entconcludes the di s tri ctcourtabus ed it s di s creti on in ordering e x c lu s i o no f

p o rti o n s o f

D r . G o f to n ’ s t e s tim o ny. Italso b o o tstrap s this arg um en t into it s claimitd id n o t violate the d istri ct co urt ’s pre- tri alschedu l ing order. T he g ov ernm ent quotes U ni ted Statesv. G ow en , forthe p ro p o s itio nth at, “ Ru le 1 6 d o e s n o t r e qu ir e th at a ll s c ie ntif ic te s tin g b e d o n e p ri o r t o tria l,” butonlyr equir es promptnoti ce to the oppos ing partyof pertinentevi dence . 32 F. 3d 1466, 1 4 7 0 (1 0 thC ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o tatio n s o m itte d ). See U ni ted Statesv. Edm ons on , 962 F. 2d 1 5 3 5 , 1 5 4 6 (1 0 thC ir. 1 9 9 2 ). T h e re f o re , a d istric t co urt’s d isc o v e ryo rd e r is re a so n ab ly c o n stru e da s m e re lyd ire c tin g th e p arties to p ro v id e e xp e rt re p o rts b yac e rta ind ate if devel oped pri orto thattim e. Pr ocee ding fromthatas s umpti on, the governm entargues s ince itdi d nothave M s . K i dd’ s or alr eportorD r . G ofton’ s r es ulting opini on pri orto the di s coverydeadl ine, and itpromptlynoti fi ed R ed Elk w hen itdeterm ined the importof the inform ati on, there w as no vi ol ati on of the di s coveryorder . N eitherargum entw as m ade to th e d istric t co urt. T h e g o v e rnm e nt d isin g e nu o u slysu g g e sts it rais e dth e se iss u e s tw ice , firs t inits o p p o s itio nto R e dE lk ’s m o tio nto s up p re s s an da g a ininits m o tio nf o r r e c o n s id e ratio n . A carefulr eading of thos e tw o document s , how ever , r evea l s onlyone verygenerals t atement in eac h, w i th cit ati ons to U ni ted Statesv. Charley , 1 8 9 F . 3 d1 2 5 1 , 1 2 6 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), U ni ted Statesv. G onzales , 164 F. 3d 1285, 1292 ( 10th C ir . 1999) , and U ni ted Statesv. G ol yans ky , 291 F. 3d 1245 ( 10th C ir . 2002) . ( A ppx. at67, 181) N one of thes e ca s es dis cuss the theori es argu ed in the g ov ernm ent’ s open ing app el l at e bri ef, no r w ere these arg um e nts p re s e nte dto th e d is tric t c o urtat th e s up p re s s io nh e ari n g .

- 10- pr om pt and ful l compl i ance w i t h t he cour t ' s di s cover yor der s . ” Id . at 1060 (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m it ted). T he gover nm ent cl ai m s t he di s t r i ct cour t fai l ed t o adequa t el ycons i der and appl yt he t hr ee fact or s enumer at ed i n Wi cke r . Itm ai ntai ns D r. G ofton’s 7“V ague, arguabl e refe r ence s to a pointin the di s tri ctcourtprocee dings do not

pr es erve the i s s ue on appe al . ” B a n c a m e r ic a Co m m e rc ia l Co r p . v . Mo s h e rSte e l o

f Ka n ., I nc. , 100 F. 3d 792, 798 ( 10th C ir . 1996) . M or eover , “w here a l iti gantchange s to a new theoryon appea lorpr es ent s a theorythatw as di s cus s ed in a vagueand ambi guous w ay th e th e o ry w ill n o t b e c o n s id e re do nap p e a l. I d. at798- 99 ( quot ati on and cit ati on o m itte d ); Southern H

os pi tali t y I nc. v. Zurich Am . I

ns . Co. , 3 9 3 F . 3 d1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 2 (10 th C ir . 2004) . W e are not“a ‘ s econd- s hot ’ forum. . . w here s econdary , back- up theori es m aybe m ount ed forthe fir s ttim e . . . . [A ] n i s s ue mustbe pres ented to, cons i dered and de ci ded bythe tri alcourtbefore itcan ber ai s ed on appe al . ” Tele- Com m unications, I nc. v. Com m ’rof

I nternalR eve nue , 104 F. 3d 1229, 1233 ( 10th C ir . 1997) ( int ernalquot ati ons an dc itatio n s o m itte d ). It is qu e stio n ab le w h e th e r th e g o v e rnm e nt ra ise dth e se arg um e nts before the di s tri ctcourtin even avague orambi guous form . T herefore, w e nee d not c o n s id e r th e m h e re . Si m i l arly , the governm entargues D r . G ofton’ s opini on r egarding the inference s from the abs enceof s al iva orm ucous on the tow el , i f exc luded fromit s cas e- in- chi ef, s houl d be al l ow ed into evi denceatotherpoint s in the tri al . A gain, thi s argum entw as not m a d e to th e d istric t co urt; w e d e c lin e to c o n sid e r it.

- 11- pr offe r ed t es t i m ony t hat t he vi ct i m w oul d have pr oduced “ copi ous s al i va and m ucous w hi l e as phy xi at i ng” s houl d have be en al l ow ed bec aus e ( 1) t her e w as no b ad fa it h , (2) the d efen se m ad e n o sh o w ing that itw as p rejud iced in p rep aring D r. G oft on’ s cr os s - exami nat i on and ( 3) a s hor t cont i nuance w oul d have a l l ow ed t he d e fe n s e to o v e rc o m e a n y d iffic u lty a ri s in g f ro m th e tim in g o f

th e d is c lo s u re . (A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 22 ). C o n tr ary to the g o v ern m en t’ s ass erti o n , the d ist ri ct co u rt car eful l ycons i der ed t he Wi cke rfa c to rs in re a c h in g its d e c is io n . A . R eas on For D el ay T he g ov ernm ent’ s curr ent t heo ryof the case i s as fol l ow s: T he gover nm ent i nt ends t o s how t hat R ed El k s t aged t he s cene found b yinv esti g ators in a n att em p t t o h ide h is cu lpab il it yfo r M s. D u p ler’s m ur der . R ed El k cl ai m ed . . . t hat M s . D upl er pl ace d t he t ow el i n her m o u th o r o v e r h e r fa c e b e fo re s h e ta p e d a p la s tic b a g o v e r h e r h e a d .T he onlyr ecord of R ed Elk’ s s t atement s are fromA gentD ecke r ’ s int ervi ew 8 not es . H ernot es indi cate R ed Elk s ai d M s . D upl er“had s om e kind of w hit e tow el , buthe w as nots ur e w hats he di d w ith it . H e thinks s he mayhave putitin herm outh. ” (A ppx. at 3 8 . ) I n footnot e 3 of the governm ent ’ s opening bri ef, itexpl ains the importof the

9 evidence as fo l l ow s: T here i s no indi cati on in the record w hatthe vi ctim ’ s phy s i calr eac ti on

- 12- A t t he cr i m e s cene , t he t ow el w as di s cover ed “a r ound her neck. ” B as ed on t he expe r t t es t i m onyof D r . G oft on, i f t hat t ow el had bee n i n M s . D upl er ’ s m out h, on her fac e, or even a r ound her neck w hen s he as phy xi at ed, t hen i t w oul d have a bs or bed hers al i va and mucous and, acc or di ng t o M s . K i dd’ s t es t i m ony , dr i ed t r ace s of t hos e fl ui ds w ou l d h ave b een d et ect ed o n the t ow el . T he p rosecut i on w ou l d u se t his evidence to show t hat t he tow el cou l d n ot have b een n ear M s. D u p ler ’s fa c e w h e n sh e a sp h y x iate d . . . . R a th e r, R e d E lk as phy xi at ed M s . D upl er w i t h t he pl as t i c bag he t hr ew i nt o t he at t i c, and t hen s t aged a s cene w i t h t he s econd pl as t i c bag, t he t ow el , and t he ductt ape. (A p p ell an t’ s R ep lyB r. at 2-3 ). 8 T he gover nm ent ar gues i t s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de t he i nfor m at i on r egar di ng t he t o we l t o t h e d e fe n s e wa s d u e t o i t s i g n o r a n c e o f t h e t o we l ’ s r e l e v a n c e a t t h e t i me of t he di s cover y deadl i ne. I t w as onl yaft er A U SA Sengel beca m e i nvol ved i n t he cas e i n l at e A ugus t t hat hi s r evi ew of t he ca s e mat er i al s l ed hi m t o r eques t fur t her t es t i ng by M s . K i dd. I t pos i t s t hat beca us e R ul e 16 does not pr ohi bi t t he gover nm ent fr om cont i nui ng a cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on once a di s cover ydeadl i ne pas s es , and t he gover nm ent pr ovi ded r eas onabl ypr om pt not i fi cat i on t o t he defe ns e af

t er l ear ni ng of t he i m por t of t he t es t i m onyt o i t s cas e, t her e w as no bad fai t h vi ol at i on of t he s chedul i ng or der j us t i fy i ng excl us i on of t he evi dence . See 9w oul d have be en i f s he w ere uncons ci ous w hen the bag w as t aped ove rher

h e a d , b ut th at sc e n ario p lain lyd e f e ats R e dE lk ’s c laim th at h e m e re ly as s i s t ed hers ui ci de. I f the evi denceindi cated thatthe tow elw as nearthe vi ctim ’ s m outh w hen s he s uffoc ated, and i f onlyan alr eadyuncons ci ous v ictim w o u ldh av e f

a iledto p ro du c e sub stantial sa liv aan dm u c o u s w h ile as phyxi ating, then thi s w oul d be s trong evi dencethatthe vi ctimdi d not her s el f tape the pl as ti c bag around herhead, butw as uncons ci ous w hen that w as done byR ed Elk. (A pp el l ant’ s B r. at24 , n. 3. ) D r. G ofton d i d n ot offer this op inion during his voirdire , nor d id h e d iscu ss w h ethe r saliv a w o u ld b e e xp ec ted if th e tow el w as n o t inM s. D up ler’s m o uth. Prior to this ap p ea l, the g o v ernm en t did n o t adv ise th e d ef en se th at anyexp ert w oul d provi de an opini on on compar ative volum es of s al iva orm ucous s ecreted during a s p hyx iatio nb a s e do nth e c o n s c io u s n e s s o f th e d e c e a s e d .

- 13- Uni t ed St at es v. G ol

yans ki , 291 F. 3d 1245, 1249 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( “I t w oul d be a r ar e ca s e w her e, abs ent bad fa i t h, a di s t r i ct cour t s houl d excl ude evi dence r at her than co n ti n u e the p roc ee d ing s. ”). I n i t s or der deny i ng t he gover nm ent ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der , t he di s t r i ct c o u rt e x p lain e d its d iss a tisfa c tio n w ith th e a c tio n s ta k e n b yth e g o v e rn m e n t: T he gover nm ent di d not i nfor m t he cour t or defe ndant ’ s couns el t hat i t had i ni t i at ed a ne w r ound of expe r t w or k bys endi ng t he t ow el and th e tap e to M s. K id d a t th e F B I la b o n A u g u st 1 0 . T h ro u g h o u t th is per i od, t he gover nm ent w as , of cour s e, w el l aw ar e of t he i m por t ance w h ich th e c o u rt a n d a ll p a rties , g o v e rn m e n t in c lu d e d , h a d a ttac h e d to ex p ert w o rk a n d to o p p o rt u n it ies fo r reb u tt al or D au bert[ ] c h a llen g e s to e x p e rt w o rk a n d o p in io n s b a se d o n th a t w o rk . N o t o n ly di d t he gover nm ent not al er t t he cour t and defens e couns el t o t he fa ct t hat i t had i ni t i at ed anot her r ound of expe r t w or k ( w i t h t he c o n se q u e n t p o ss ib ili tyth a t itm ig h t b e fe a sib le to c o m p lete r es pons i ve w or k on an expe di t ed bas i s , t hus avoi di ng a s er i ous s chedul i ng di l emm a) , t he gover nm ent w ai t ed unt i l O ct ober 3, s even day s befo re t ri al , t o p rovi de ev en a crypti c no t i fi cat i on t o d efen se couns el . . . even t hough t he gover nm ent , by i t s ow n admi s s i on, had been a w ar e of t he r es ul t s of M s . K i dd’ s addi t i onal w or k . . . s i nce- 14-

“ s o m e tim e d u ri n g th e w e e k o f S e p te m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 .” (A p p x . at 23 1 . ) T h e c o u rt n o ted th e tow el ha d b ee n in the g o v ern m en t’ s pos s es s i on fr om J anuar yt hr ough A ugus t 2005, but t he gover nm ent coul d offe r no r e a s o n w h y i t d i d n o t s e n d t h e t o w e l fo r t e s t i n g t o t h e F B I l a b b a c k i n J a n u a r y. I ndeed, “t he addi t i onal exper t w or k w as under t aken onl ybeca us e t he gover nm ent ’ s new couns el r evi ew ed t he fi l e l ong aft er t he s chedul i ng deadl i nes h ad ex p ir ed an d p erc eive d a n ew p o ssibil it yfo r ex p ert w o rk.” (A p p x . at 24 1 -42 . ) I n addi t i on, t he gover nm ent di d not r evea l M s . K i dd w oul d t es t i fyt hat evi dence of m ucous or s al i va w oul d be expe ct ed t o r emai n det ect abl e on t he t ow el for ei ght m ont hs unt i l poi nt ed ques t i oni ng fr om t he cour t at t he O ct ober 5, 2005 hear i ng. G i ven t hi s s cena r i o, t he di s t r i ct cour t concl uded: A fin d in g o f

b a d fa ith , es p e c ially a s to a d e d ica ted p ro se c u to r, is stro n g m e d icin e , to w h ich th is c o u rt w ill n o t re a d ilyre so rt. H is a c ts and omi s s i ons w er e obvi ous l yi nt ent i onal ; he has not cl ai m ed i gnor ance of t he s chedul i ng or der t hat w as ent er ed fourm ont hs befor e he e nt er ed hi s appea r ance . H i s fai l ur e t o for t hr i ght l ybr oach t he i s s ue ata t i m e w hen i t m i ght have be en r es ol ved w i t h no subst anti al harm t o eit her part ycann ot be excu sed - i t bespea ks a w i l l i ngnes s t o cr os s t he l i ne fa r enough t o as s ur e t he frus t r at i on of m e a n in g f

u l re sp o n siv e e ffo rts o n b e h a lf o f th e d e fe n d a n t. A n d h is w it h h o lding , u n ti l O ctob er 3 (on e w ee k b efo re tri al), o f th e lab rep o rt that h e h ad in h an d o n S ep tem b er 2 1 leav es v ery li tt le roo m fo r a fi ndi ng t hat he w as i nt er es t ed i n s t r i ki ng har d bl ow s but not foul o n e s . (A p p x . a t 2 4 6 .)F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 6 (a )(F ) p ro v id e s th at “th e g o v e rnm e nt mu st p e rm it a 10 d e f e n d ant to in sp e c t an dto c o p yo r p h o to g rap hth e re su lts o r re p o rts o f . . . anysc ien tific t es torexperim enti f . . . ( i i i ) the it em i s m ateri alto pr eparing the def ens e orthe go vernm ent intends to u se the item in it s case- in-chi ef attri al . ” Rule 16(c) impo ses a continuing dutyto di s cl os e additi onalevi dencedi s covered pri orto orduring tri ali f the m ateri ali s s ubj ectto di s coveryunderRul e 16.

- 15- T he go vernm ent i nsi st s t hat un der R ule 16 i t w as not r equ i red t o d i scl ose 10 M s . K i dd’ s r epor t unt i l aft er i t had s poken t o D r . G oft on and dec i ded t o us e t he e v id e n c e in its c a se -in -c h ief. T h e re fo re , the d istric t co u rt e rre d in its d e te rm in a tio n re g a rd in g th e tim in g o f th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s d is c lo s u re . W e d is a g re e . “Even w her e R ul e 16 i s i nappl i cabl e, t he cour t s have di s cr et i on t o excl ude evi dence as a s anct i on for vi ol at i on of a di s cover yor der . ” Uni t ed St at es v. G onz al es , 1 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 1 ; se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . R u ss e ll, 109 F. 3d 1503, 1510 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) . T her e i s no ques t i on t hat t hi s exper t r epor t and t es t i m ony w er e s ol i ci t ed and s ubm i t t ed af t er t he di s cover ydeadl i ne and onl ya fe w w eeks b e fo re trial. T h e trial c o u rt o b se rv e d it w a s n o t u n c o m m o n fo r a law y e r w h o e n ter s la te i n t he ca s e t o w i s h hi s pr edec es s or s had done mor e, but t hr oughout t hi s cas e t he g o v e rn m e n t h a d b e e n re p re se n ted b yv e ter a n trial la w y e rs w h o h a d f u ll ac c e ss to th is e v id e n c e a n d th e F B I’s fo re n sic se rv ice s. M o re o v e r, w e a re n o t w ill in g to say itw as u n rea so n ab le fo r t h e d ist ri ct co u rt to ex p ec t t h at l ate-d isco v ere d ex p ert evidence sup po rt i ng a new t ri al t heo ryw ou l d b e dis cl osed at t he earl i est o p p o rtu n ity , n o tw ith sta n d in g th e tec h n ica l re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 1 6 , in o rd e r to- 16-

fac i l i t at e t he t r i al s chedul e. E ven as s um i ng t he governm ent m aynot have be en c e rta in th a t M s. K id d ’s r e p o rt w o u ld b e m a ter ial to p re p a rin g th e d e fe n se , it su re lyk n e w th e p ro b a b ili tyw a s h ig h . W e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t, w h ile t he gover nm ent m aynot have vi ol at ed t he l et t er of R ul e 16, i t cer t ai nl yvi ol at ed its s p ir it. S e e R u ss e ll , 109 F. 3d at 1512 ( “Pr om pt not i fi cat i on [ ] coul d have a v o id e d th e n e e d fo r a c o n tin u a n c e . [C o u n se l’s] a c tio n s c o n stitu ted a w h o lly u n sa tisfa c to ry c o m p lian c e w ith th e first Wi cke rfa ctor.”). B . Pr ej udi ce t o t he D efe ndant “To suppor t a fi ndi ng of pr ej udi ce, t he cour t m us t det er m i ne t hat t he del ay i m pact ed t he defendant ' s abi l i t y t o pr epar e or pr es ent i t s cas e. ” G ol yans ky , 291 F. 3d at1250. T he gover nm ent cl ai m s R ed El k m ade no s how i ng t hat he w as pr ej udi ced byt he t i m i ng of t he di s cl os ur e of D r . G oft on’ s t es t i m ony , t her e w as no r eas on t o bel i eve t he defens e w as i n fac t pr ej udi ced, and t he di s t r i ct cour t m ade no fi ndi ng of s uch pr ej udi ce. I t ar gues R ed El k knew s i nce M ar ch 8, 2005, t he dat e of D r . G oft on’ s r epor t , t hat D r . G oft on w oul d be an e xper t w i t nes s t es t i fy i ng a s to M s. D u p ler ’s c a u se o f d e a th . T h u s, th e re w a s m o re th a n su fficie n t ti m e to pr epar e anychal l enge t o hi s m edi cal and for ens i c know l edge a nd l i t t l e addi t i onal pr epar at i on w oul d be nee ded t o cr os s - exami ne hi m on hi s opi ni on t hat M s . D upl er w oul d have pr oduced c opi ous amount s of s al i va w hi l e s he as phy xi at ed. T he gover nm ent fur t her as s er t s t he di s t r i ct cour t di d not r el yon anys how i ng of p reju d ice w h e n it m a d e its o ra l ru lin g s a n d o n lyfo u n d p reju d ice to th e d e fe n se in- 17-

pr epar i ng a cha l l enge t o M s . K i dd’ s t es t i m ony , an expe r t w ho al s o had bee n i dent i fi ed s i nce M ay17, 2005. T he gover nm ent ’ s ar gum ent m i s r epr es ent s t he cour t ’ s car eful cons i der at i on o f th is fa c to r in its o b se rv a tio n s a t th e h e a rin g a n d in its w ritten o rd e r. P rio r to issuing it s o ral ruli n g , the d ist ri ct co u rt ex p resse d co n ce rn a s to w h ethe r D r. G oft on’ s exper t i s e enc om pas s ed t he ar eas neede d t o r enderan expe r t opi ni on as t o s om e of t he new l y - i dent i fi ed t opi cs . I t not ed i t w oul d not “per m i t D r . G oft on t o expound on . . . any t hi ng t hat w oul d s ugges t t hat he has anypar t i cul ar ex p erti se b ey o n d that w h ich h e c learlyp rofesse s to h av e.” (A p p x . at 15 9 -60 . ) In i t s w r i t t en or der , t he cour t s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed t he pr ej udi ce t o t he defens e, ph ras i ng t he is sue as foll ow s: T h e g o v ern m en t [ ] pu t t h e d efen d an t i n the p o sit ion , a w ee k b efo re t r i al , of cont endi ng w i t h a new l y - di s cl os ed hypot hes i s , pr emi s ed on new exper t w or k, t hat i f t he defendanthad ac t ed as he cl ai m ed he had, M s . D upl er ’ s s al i va and mucous w oul d have be en det ect abl e on th e to w e l eig h t m o n th s a f ter th e flu id s w e re d e p o site d o n th e to w e l. (A p p x . at 2 4 0 -4 1 .) T h e c o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t co m p e ten t d e fe n se c o u n se l, at a m i ni m um , w oul d need t i m e t o as cer t ai n t he “met hodol ogy , fac t ual acc ur acyand s i gni fi canc e of t he ‘ al t er nat e l i ght s our ce’ t es t s ” and t he handl i ng of t he t ow el w hi l e i t w as i n t he FB I ’ s pos s es s i on for ei ght m ont hs , pos s i bl ybei ng t ouched by per s onnel unaw ar e t he t ow el w oul d l at er be t es t ed fort he pr es ence of any s ubs t ance . T he cour t concl uded t he l at e di s cl os ur e “e ffe ct i vel ypr ecl ude[d] m ea n ing fu l effo rt s b y d efen se c o u n sel t o test the tec h n ical m erito f th e n ew ex p ert- 18-

t es t i m onyor t o m ar s hal t he r es our ces nece s s ar yt o chal l enge t he . . . t es t i m ony ei t her byw ayof a D au bert[ ] chal l enge orby w ayof r ebut t al at t r i al . ” ( A ppx. at 2 4 7 .) W e fin d n o th in g in th e fa c ts to re b u t th e c o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n . C o n tra ry to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a ss e rtio n s, th e p reju d ice to R e d E lk ’s c a se w e n t b e y o n d m e re ly needi ng a fe w day s t o pr epar e ques t i ons for cr os s - exami nat i on. C . C hoi ce of

Sanct i on A l t hough t he gover nm ent i ni t i al l yoppos ed a c ont i nuance , i t r eques t ed t hat rem ed yas a n alt ern ati v e in its m o ti o n to rec o n side r. It is t h e g o v ern m en t’ s pos i t i on t hat a s hor t cont i nuance w oul d have c ur ed anypr ej udi ce. W hi l e a cont i nuance i s t he “pr efe r r ed s anct i on, ” t he cour t has br oad di s cr et i on w het her or n o t to g ra n t o n e . G ol

yans ky , 29 1 F . 3d at 12 49 . “T he tr i al j ud ge is i n the best p o sitio n to e v a lu a te th e e ffe c t o f [ ] n e w e v id e n c e a n d d e ter m in e th e a p p ro p ria te cour s e of a ct i on. ” Uni t ed St at es v. E dm ons on , 9 6 2 F . 2 d 1 5 3 5 , 1 5 4 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). T h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e e ffe c t o f i t s l i m i t a t i o n o n D r . G o f t o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y, com m enti ng : “T here shou l d b e no m i sapprehen si on t hat t he g ov ernm ent’ s case w oul d s t and or fal l w i t h t he admi s s i bi l i t yof t hi s hypot hes i s . [I t i s ] but one of num er ous ar r ow s i n t he gover nm ent ’ s qui ver - - not t he l eas t of w hi ch i s t he fa ct t hat t he defendantdoes not denyt hat he hel ped ki l l R egi na D upl er . . . . ” ( A ppx. at 24 1 , n . 1 0 . ) Italso co n side red the fac t i t w as e x clud ing o n lya p o rt ion o f D r. G oft on’ s t es t i m ony , w hi l e al l ow i ng hi m t o opi ne on hi s per s onal obs er vat i ons- 19-

m ad e d u ri n g h is ex am ination inclu d ing the a b sen ce o f a d h esiv e o n M s. D u p ler’s ankl es and t he abs ence of fi ber s i n her m out h. I n Uni t ed St at es v. Wi cke r , w e a ffirm e d th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to e x c lu d e te s tim o n y a n d a la b re p o rt d u e to la te d is c lo s u re . 8 4 8 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 0 , 1 0 6 2 . H er e, t he cour t found t he fa ct s i n Wi cke rw er e mat er i al l yi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om t he fa ct s befor e i t , not i ng t he pr i or effor t s by t he cour t t o guar ant ee pr om pt and compl et e di s cover y , t he i nt er es t i n m ai nt ai ni ng t he i nt egr i t yand s chedul e of t he c o u r t , a n d t h e c o u r t ’ s “ i n h e r e n t p o we r t o c o n t r o l a n d s u p e r v i s e i t s o wn pr ocee di ngs . ” ( A ppx. at 243 ( quot i ng Wi cke r , 8 4 8 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 1 )). A s w e sta ted in R u ss e ll , “ Wi cke r ' s ad m o n it ion that the tri al co u rt m u st i m p o se th e lea st sev ere s a n c t i o n t h a t w i l l a c c o m p l i s h p r o m p t a n d f u l l c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e c o u r t 's d isc o v e ry o rd e rs d o e s n o t m e a n th a t a c o n tin u a n c e is n e c e ss a ry ju st b e c a u se it w i l l cure t he p rej ud i ce . . . . A rem edy t hat does no t m ai ntai n [the cou rt ’s ] i nt egr i t yand s chedul e does not acc om pl i s h pr om pt and ful l compl i ance w i t h t he cour t ' s di s cover y or der s . ” R u ss e ll , 109 F. 3d at 1512 ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n l i ght of t he di s t r i ct cour t ' s car eful cons i der at i on of t he re lev a n t fa c to rs a n d o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd , w e h o ld th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d i s c r e t i o n i n s u p p r e s s i n g p o r t i o n s o f D r . G o f t o n ’ s t e s t i m o n y.- 20-

AFF I RM ED . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge