1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Sean C. Chapman 

Law Office of Sean C. Chapman, P.C.

100 North Stone Avenue, Suite 701

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: (520) 622-0747

Fax: (520) 628-7861

Arizona State Bar No. 012088

Attorney for Defendant Swartz

Sean@seanchapmanlaw.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

Lonnie Ray Swartz,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR15-1723 TUC RCC(DTF)

SIXTH MOTION TO CONTINUE 

TRIAL

It is expected that excludable delay under Title 18, United States Code, § 

3161(h)(1)(F) will occur as a result of this motion or an order based thereon.

The defendant, through undersigned counsel, moves to continue the trial in this 

matter from its currently scheduled date, June 19, 2017 for the reasons that follow.

The government indicted this matter in September, 2015 roughly after three years 

of investigation. The matter has been in litigation now for 18 months and the 

government has disclosed over 10,500 pages of documents, and the existence of roughly 

50 to a 100 potential witnesses. The government has also disclosed ten experts 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 114 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

including a criminalist, a shooting incident re-constructionist, two forensic medical 

experts from Mexico, a forensic medical examiner from the Pima County Medical 

Examiners Office, two forensic chemical experts from Mexico, a use of force expert, a 

video expert, and a forensic pathologist.

The defense has disclosed a use of force expert, a police psychologist to talk 

about the stressors associated with a police shooting and how they impact the perception 

of the shooter, a forensic pathologist, and a graphic video expert.

Not surprisingly, the Court has designated this matter a complex case.

The evidence in this case will show that the decedent and others in Mexico were 

attempting to injure law enforcement officers in the United States by hurling rocks at 

them as they tried to apprehend two drug smugglers who were climbing over the 

international boundary fence. A key issue in the case is whether the decedent, who was 

shot multiple times by Agent Swartz, received the fatal shot to his head as he was 

standing, or after he had fallen to the ground. The government and defense are both 

aware of this key issue and have proffered testimony from their experts on it. The 

government’s pathologist claims that the decedent was alive and on the ground when he 

received the fatal head shot. The government’s video expert has created an unreliable 

video clip (subject of a pending Daubert challenge) purporting to show movement by 

the decedent on the ground. 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 114 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The defense pathologist believes that the decedent was still standing when he 

received the fatal shot. The defense graphics expert is likely to testify that the claim by 

the government video expert that the decedent moved on the ground is unreliable for 

multiple reasons.

At any rate, as indicated above, the position of the decedent (standing or on the 

ground) when he received the fatal head shot is critically important to the parties and 

will be the subject of a great deal of evidence and testimony at trial.

On April 20, 2017, almost five years after the shooting, 18 months after securing 

an indictment, and only 59 days before trial, the government disclosed its intent to use 

the testimony of a blood spatter expert on this critical issue. The government’s expert 

claims that blood splatter in the area of the decedent suggests that the decedent was on 

the ground and alive when he was shot, with his head possibly raised. This testimony is 

speculative at best and will be the subject of a Daubert challenge by the defense if the 

Court does not simply preclude the testimony because of late disclosure. If this expert 

is not precluded, however, the defense will need to locate and retain his own blood 

splatter expert. Given the proximity of the current trial date, however, there simply isn’t 

enough time now to do this.

Based on the foregoing, the defendant requests that the Court continue the trial, 

or, alternatively preclude the government’s blood splatter expert. Government’s 

counsel has been advised of this motion and objects to it.

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 114 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of April, 2017

LAW OFFICE OF SEAN CHAPMAN, P.C.

BY: /S/ Sean C. Chapman

Sean Chapman

Attorney for Defendant

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 114 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on April 20, 2017, caused to be electronically filed 

the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent 

notification to the following:

Wallace H. Kleindienst

Mary Sue Feldmeier

Wallace.Kleindienst@usdoj.gov

Mary.Sue.Feldmeier@usdoj.gov

US Attorneys Office – Tucson, AZ

405 W. Congress, Suite 4800

Tucson, AZ 85701-4050

Serena Lara

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 114 Filed 04/20/17 Page 5 of 5