# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 14 62

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Keit h A. Grav es , als o k no wn as Ch ris W oo ds

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 7
Fil ed : M ay

10 , 20 17 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Afte r a le ng th y tri al at whi ch Keit h A. Grav es rep res en te d hi m se lf wit h th e he lp

of st an d- by co un se l, a jury co nv ic te d Grav es of fiv e co un ts of se x tra ffi ck in g by fo rce

or co erci on an d two co un ts of po ss es si on an d di st rib ut io n of m et ha m ph et am in e. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 15 91 (a), (b )(1 ); 21 U.S.C. §§ 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1)

, 84 4( a). The jury acq ui tt edG r av es of fo ur se x tra ffi ck in g of fen se s. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 4 0 5 1

m on th s in pr is on

. On ap pe al

, rep res en te d by st an d- by tri al co un se l, Grav es arg ue s he

was de ni ed a f

a i r tri al whe n th e go ve rn m en t pr od uc ed vo lu m in ou s di sc ov ery in a

m an ne r Grav es co ul d no t effe ct iv el y acce ss whi le in pr et ria l de te nt io n an d us e at tri al

,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t d en ie d h is req ue st fo r a co nt in ua nc e m ad e on th e m or ni ng hi s
lo ng -d el ay ed tri al was s ch ed ul ed to be gi n. We affi rm

.

At hi s arra ig nm en t on a su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, Grav es to ld th e mag i s t r at e jud ge t h a t he wan te d to rep res en t hi m se lf be cau se ap po in te d co un se l, an as si st an t

fed eral pu bl ic de fen de r, was “ wor ki ng to ge th er” wi th th e p ro se cu to r to vi ol at e “ m y

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s to a sp eed y tri al .” On May 18

, 20 15

, th e di st ric t co ur t he ld a
he ari ng on co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw. The co ur t ga ve Grav es a le ng th y warn in g

a b o u t t he da ng ers of se lf- rep res en ta ti on ; Grav es ag ai n sa id he wan te d to rep res en t

hi m se lf. Fi nd in g th at he was m en ta ll y co m pe te nt an d m ad e a kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary
waiv er of hi s rig ht to co un se l, th e co ur t al lo wed hi m to pr oc eed pr o se an d ap po in te d

st an d- by cou ns el

.

At th is he ari ng , th e co ur t as ke d if Grav es ha d acce ss to t h e go ve rn m en t’s

di sc ov ery. The pr os ecu to r ad vi se d th at ex te ns iv e di sc ov ery ha d be en p r o v id ed on

twen ty-two d is ks pu rs ua nt to a st ip ul at ed di sc ov ery o rd er. Grav es co m pl ai ne d th at

he di d no t ha ve acce ss to el ect ro ni c di sc ov ery at th e de te nt io n faci li ty in Ru gb y an d

no acce ss to FBI in te rv ie w rep or ts

. The co ur t di rect ed th e U.S. Mar sh al s Serv ic e to

en su re th ere was a ro om wit h a c o m pu te r at th e Ru gb y faci li ty wh ere Grav es co ul d

lo ok at th e di sc ov ery “ m or e th an an ho ur a da y .” Grav es sa id

, “ I’ll lo ok at ev erythi ng

ev ery da y un ti l I g o t o t ria l,” a nd sai d h e wou ld be read y for a m id -J ul y

tri al

.

The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct 1

Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.

-2

-At a Ju ne 23

, 20 15 st at us co nf eren c e , th e pr os ecu to r as su red th e co ur t, “ W e

se nt al l th e di sc ov ery ou t.” Grav es sa id he ha d rev ie wed ei gh t of th e twen ty-fou r CDs

an d co m pl ai ne d th at he ne ed ed m or e ti m e to pr ep are fo r tri al be cau se “ I can ’t ge t an y

pa pe r co pi es of an y th in g at al l,” and th e la pt op in Ru gb y “ do es n’t real ly pl ay al l th e

pr og ram s.” The co ur t ex pl ai ne d t ha t it was st an da rd po li cy no t to al lo w i nm at es in

cu st od y awai ti ng tri al to ha ve pa pe r co pi es of di sc ov ery th at co ul d “ ge t in th e wro ng

ha nd s.” The co ur t sa id th is is why “ m os t pe op le rel y up on an at to rn ey to accu m ul at e

t h at in fo rm at io n an d co nd uc t th e in ve st ig at io n.” The co ur t gr an te d Grav es a

co nt in ua nc e, as su red hi m “ we can fin d an ot he r la pt op c o mp ut er, an d

. . . se t as id e

m or e ti m e fo r y ou to lo ok at th os e im ag es ,” gr an te d Grave s’s bel at ed req ue st fo r an

in ve st ig at or , an d ad vi se d Grav es to co ns ul t wit h st an d- by co un se l. On Sep te m be r 15

, th e co ur t or de red Grav es tra ns ferr ed fro m th e jail in Ru gb y to th e Bu rle ig h C o u n t y

Dete nt io n Cen te r in Bi sm arck

, whe re he wou ld be pr o v id ed a co m pu te r wit h

ap pr op ria te so ftwa re t o a id in hi s re vi ew of di sc ov ery.

At th e st art of a pr et ria l co nf eren ce on Sep te m

be r 28

, th e co ur t no te d tri al was

sc he du le d fo r two week s be gi nn in g Octo be r 19 an d di sc us se d “ ho w th is tri al is go in g

to pro ceed .” The co ur t in st ru ct ed Grav es to im m ed ia te ly co nt act st an d- by co un se l,

who wou ld co nt act th e cl erk of c ou rt, i f Grav es ha d pr ob le m s re vi ewin g d is co ve ry

. Grav es rep li ed

, “ W el l, s o far, You r Hon or , I ha ve n’t be en ab le to rev ie w it ,” an d

as ke d ho w he wou ld be ab le to se pa rat e th e in fo rm at io n a n d pr es en t it as ex hi bi ts

. The co ur t in st ru ct ed th e U.S. Mar sh al to m ak e su re Grav es ha s “ fu ll acce ss to a

la pt op ” at th e Dete nt io n Cen te r an d sa id

, if th ey can no t do it

, pr ov id e Grav es a ro om

at th e fed eral co ur th ou se whe re he can si t al l da y an d lo ok at di sc ov ery. The co ur t

ad vi se d Grav es to wor k wit h st an d- by co un s e l t o d ev el op tri al ex hi bi ts

. Grav es

c o mp l a i ne d he ha d no t be en pr ov id ed an in ve st ig at or

. The co ur t rep li ed

, “ I n e v e r

rece iv ed an y le t t e r fro m y ou req ue st in g pr iv at e in ve st ig at or fu nd s,” award ed fu nd s

fo r an in ve st ig at or , an d in st ru ct ed st an d- by co un se l to he lp arra ng e in te rv ie ws of

pe rs on s Grav es w a n t e d in te rv ie wed

. Grav es al so co m pl ai ne d th at “ so m e of th es e

-3

-di sc ov eri es di sk s

. . . do n’t ev en wor k.” The pr os ecu to r ex pl a i n e d th at

, wit h

el ect ro ni c d ev ic e d is co ve ry , so m et im es th ere i s n ot hi ng to vi ew.

On Octo be r 19

, be fo re se le ct in g th e jury, th e di st ric t co ur t ga th ered co un se l an d

Grav es to di sc us s th e pr el im in ary jury in st r u c t io ns

. Grav es st at ed he ha d no t

rev ie wed al l th e di sc ov ery, “ an d ba si cal ly I’m un pr ep ared to go fo rward wit h tri al .”

The co ur t rep li e d : “I h a d y ou tra ns po rte d to Bi sm arck to el im in at e al l of th es e

pr ob le m s

. . . wh y di dn ’t you br in g th es e to m y at te nt io n so m et im e in t h e l a s t t h ree
week s?

. . . I’ve m ad e it crystal cl ear th at th ere wo ul d b e n o fu rth er co nt in ua nc es .”

Afte r le ng th y c o mpla in ts by Grav es , th e co ur t ob se rv ed : “ acco rd in g to [Det en ti on

Cen te r] reco rd s

. . . y ou ’ve on ly us ed th e co m pu te r ov er th ere se ve n ho ur s in th e la st

th ree week s.

. . . a nd y ou ha ve n’t co nt act ed m e to le t m e kn ow th at y ou ’ve h a d a ny

pr ob le m s wha ts oe ve r ab ou t th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce an d m ak in g su re th at y ou ’ve

se en it al l an d co nt em

pl at ed it al l.” Afte r co nf irming t h a t t h e g ov ern m en t ha d

co m pl ie d wi th it s d is co ve ry

ob li ga ti on s, t he co ur t d en ie d Gra ve s a c on ti nu an ce.

The le ng th y tri al tra ns cri pt de m on st rat es th at Grav es m ad e co ns id erab le us e of

th e go ve rn m en t’s di sc ov ery in rep res en ti ng hi m se lf at tri al

, an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t

li be ral ly al lo wed hi m to in tro du ce di sc ov ery m at eri al s an d us e th em to im pe ach

go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s.

On ap pe al

, Grav es fir st arg ue s th at he was de ni ed a fai r tri al be cau se th e

go ve rn m en t di d n o t p r o d u c e ov er 6,0 00 pa ge s of di sc ov ery in a ti m el y m an ne r an d

usab le fo rm th at ga ve Grav es an op po rtu ni ty to rev ie w di sc ov ery, in ve st ig at e th e case ,

an d wor k wit h st an d- by co un se l to su bp oe na wit ne ss es an d pr ep are ex hi bi ts fo r tri al

. Afte r care fu l rev ie w o f th e tri al an d pr et ria l reco rd , we di sa gr ee. The re is no cl ai m

th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to co m pl y wit h it s di sc lo su re req ui rem en ts un de r Ru le s

16 (a)( 1) (A), (E), (F), o r 26 .2 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro ced ur e.

-4

-Ru le 16 do es no t a d d r e s s t he fo rm di sc ov ery m us t ta ke

, an d th e “ op en
di sc ov ery fil e” pr ov id ed by th e go ve rn m en t in th is cas e al lo wed Grav es acce ss to

m at eri al th at was no t req ui red by ru l e , s t a t u t e , o r th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. Co un se l si gn ed

a st ip ul at ed di sc ov ery an d pr ot ect iv e or de r earl y in th e cas e t h a t pe rm it te d th e

go ve rn m en t to pr od uc e di sc ov ery in di gi ta l fo rm at an d de ni ed Grav es pa pe r co pi es
whi le de ta in ed

. Grav es ci te s no au th or it y req ui rin g th e go v e r n men t to pr od uc e
el ect ro ni c di sc ov ery in a pa rti cu la r fas hi on

. See Uni te d St at es v. W ars ha k, 63 1 F.3 d

26 6, 2 96 (6 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The di st ric t co ur t m ad e gr eat effo rt to as su re th at Grav es

ha d ti m el y co m

pu te r acce ss to th e di sc ov ery. It gr an te d a co nt in ua nc e, m ov ed Grav es

to a de te nt io n faci li ty cl os er to th e co ur th ou se , an d in st ru c te d th e U.S. Mar sh al s

Serv ic e to en su re th e de te nt io n cen te r pr ov id ed Grav es ad eq ua te co m pu te r acce ss , or

to pr ov id e hi m a ro om at th e co ur th ou se fo r th at pu rp os e. The reco rd di sc lo se s th at

Grav es was pr ov id ed a pr et ria l in ve st ig at or , su bp oe na ed nu m ero us de fen se wit ne ss es

fo r tri al , a nd m ad e us e of th e go ve rn m en t’s di sc o ve ry at tri al

. Fi na ll y , a nd pe rh ap s

most im po rta nt ly, Grav es pr ov id es no in st an ces whe re la ck of acce ss to s p e c i f i c
di sc ov ery pr ejud ic ed hi s tri al de fe n s e

. I n th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th e

go ve rn m en t di d no t de ny Grav es hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to a fai r tri al

, an d th e di st ric t

co urt di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in res po nd in g to hi s nu m ero us di sc ov ery co m pl ai nt s.

Grav es ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g hi s da y

o f -tr ia l m ot io n fo r an ot he r co nt in ua nc e. W e di sf av or co nt in ua nc es , p art ic ul arl y o n

th e ev e of tri al

, an d will rev ers e on ly if th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s bro ad di sc ret io n

an d th e m ov in g pa rty was pr ejud ic ed

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ch ah ia

, 54 4 F.3 d 89 0, 89 6
(8 th Cir . 20 08 ). He re, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Grav es a le ng th y co nt in ua nc e, to ld

hi m to al ert st an d- by co un se l im m ed ia te ly i f t he co ur t’s effo rts to res ol ve hi s
di sc ov ery pr obl em s w er e not w or ki ng , an d warn ed th at no fu rth er co nt in ua nc es wou ld

be gr an te d. The co ur t al so ag ai n ad vi se d th at Grav es was un wis e to rep res en t hi m se lf

an d sa id he co ul d tu rn to hi s well -p rep ared st a n d

- b y c o u n s e l to co nd uc t th e tri al at

an y ti m e. Grav es th en ap pe are d th e m or ni ng of tri al

, ad vi se d th e co ur t of m y ria d,

pr ev io us ly un di sc lo se d di sc ov ery co m pl ai nt s th at m ad e hi m un pr ep ared fo r tri al

, bu t

-5

-ad m it te d th at he ha d lo ok ed at di sc ov ery on ly se ve n ho ur s th e pr ev io us th ree week s.

The co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th is un ti m el y req ue s t

. M o r e ov er,

Grav es ha s fa il ed to sh ow p reju di ce, “ th at , if t he co nt in ua nc e h ad be en gra nt ed , th e

res ul t of th e tri al wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Hy le s, 47 9 F.3 d 95 8,

96 8 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ).

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-