Opinion ID: 443089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: defendant's motion for continuance

Text: 36 Finally, appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance when the government failed to comply with a pre-trial discovery order requiring disclosure of promises of immunity made to any prospective witnesses. 37 The government waited until the day of trial to reveal information about a grant of immunity and a prior conviction relating to Carlos Munoz, despite the pre-trial discovery order issued six weeks earlier. Appellant immediately asked for a continuance, and the trial court denied this request. Appellant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the continuance. 14 Under the principles announced in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972), due process requires the government to disclose both to the defense and to the jury any promises of immunity or leniency offered to witnesses in return for testimony. Williams v. Brown, 609 F.2d 216, 221 (5th Cir.1980). The rationale for requiring government disclosure of this evidence is to permit the jury to evaluate a witness' credibility in assessing the weight to give testimony. Giglio, 79 S.Ct. at 766. The Giglio Court did not intimate when the government was required to turn over this information, but in Williams v. Dutton, 400 F.2d 797 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1105, 89 S.Ct. 908, 21 L.Ed.2d 799 (1969), the Fifth Circuit observed that the government had a duty to provide evidence favorable to a criminal defendant at the appropriate time. 400 F.2d at 800. 38 Here, although the government did not comply with the discovery order until the day of trial, appellant obtained the information relating to Munoz before Munoz testified, and evidence of the government's grant of immunity and Munoz's prior criminal record was elicited on direct examination and thoroughly probed on cross-examination. Because the government made the agreement known to the defense prior to trial, in sufficient time for the jury to become aware of it, we conclude that the purpose of the Giglio doctrine was accomplished and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a continuance. United States v. Poitier, 623 F.2d 1017, 1023-24 (5th Cir.1980); Hudson v. Blackburn, 601 F.2d 785, 789 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086, 100 S.Ct. 1046, 62 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980); United States v. McGovern, 499 F.2d 1140, 1143 (1st Cir.1974). Moreover, the court later granted a three-day recess before Munoz testified so that appellant could investigate Munoz's history of mental health. Even assuming the trial court erred in refusing appellant's initial request for a continuance, any harm caused thereby was remedied. 15