Opinion ID: 1972105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion for Sanctions.

Text: Curry's trial was originally scheduled to begin on January 13, 1993, before Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. Two days before that initial trial date, the prosecutor provided Jones' statement to Curry's attorney, describing it as potentially Brady. [6] Jones, however, could not be located, and the case was continued to April 9, 1993, so that the attorneys could endeavor to find him. On April 8, 1993, the eve of the rescheduled trial date, Curry's new attorney filed a motion to dismiss the indictment or, in the alternative, for sanctions. In his motion, counsel advised the court that, notwithstanding diligent efforts, he had been unable to ascertain Jones' whereabouts. He argued that if timely disclosure had been made, the defense could probably have located Jones and presented his testimony at trial. Counsel prayed for dismissal or, if that relief were denied, for leave to introduce relevant portions of [Jones'] statement which contradict the testimony of government witnesses. Acknowledging that the government would have no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, defense counsel stated that, because the prosecution was at fault, such a burden is negligible in comparison to the burden on defendant of having to conduct his defense without the benefit of a most crucial witness.