Opinion ID: 167650
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Choice of Sanction

Text: Although the government initially opposed a continuance, it requested that remedy as an alternative in its motion to reconsider. It is the government’s position that a short continuance would have cured any prejudice. W hile a continuance is the “preferred sanction,” the court has broad discretion whether or not to grant one. Golyansky, 291 F.3d at 1249. “The trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the effect of [ ] new evidence and determine the appropriate course of action.” United States v. Edmonson, 962 F.2d 1535, 1549 (10th Cir. 1992). The court considered the effect of its limitation on Dr. Gofton’s testimony, commenting: “There should be no misapprehension that the government’s case would stand or fall with the admissibility of this hypothesis. [It is] but one of numerous arrows in the government’s quiver - - not the least of which is the fact that the defendant does not deny that he helped kill Regina Dupler . . . .” (Appx. at 241, n. 10.) It also considered the fact it was excluding only a portion of D r. Gofton’s testimony, while allowing him to opine on his personal observations -18- made during his examination including the absence of adhesive on M s. Dupler’s ankles and the absence of fibers in her mouth. In United States v. Wicker, we affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude testimony and a lab report due to late disclosure. 848 F.2d at 1060, 1062. Here, the court found the facts in Wicker were materially indistinguishable from the facts before it, noting the prior efforts by the court to guarantee prompt and complete discovery, the interest in maintaining the integrity and schedule of the court, and the court’s “inherent power to control and supervise its own proceedings.” (Appx. at 243 (quoting Wicker, 848 F.2d at 1061)). As w e stated in Russell, “Wicker's admonition that the trial court must impose the least severe sanction that will accomplish prompt and full compliance with the court's discovery orders does not mean that a continuance is necessary just because it will cure the prejudice . . . . A remedy that does not maintain [the court’s] integrity and schedule does not accomplish prompt and full compliance with the court's discovery orders.” Russell, 109 F.3d at 1512 (internal citations and quotations omitted). In light of the district court's careful consideration of the relevant factors and our review of the record, we hold the court did not abuse its discretion in suppressing portions of Dr. Gofton’s testimony. -19- AFFIRM ED. Entered by the C ourt: Terrence L. O ’Brien