Opinion ID: 771840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Curing prejudice with a continuance

Text: 25 The district court itself acknowledged in its April 1st order denying the exclusion of various witnesses on Brady grounds that continued violations of its discovery deadlines and scheduling orders, in addition to wreaking havoc on the defense's and the Court's ability to efficiently prepare for trial, might require additional continuances of the trial date. In doing so, the district court implicitly recognized that a continuance was a viable and likely consequence of tardy disclosure. 26 Additionally, most of the defense attorneys conceded to the district court that if there was going to be a continuance, it would only need to be for two or three days. Furthermore, as the sanctioned materials were scheduled to be produced by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 2nd, only two days prior to the actual disclosure on Monday the 5th (the scheduled day of trial), and as the district court had already planned to recess the trial from Tuesday the 6th through Thursday the 8th, we conclude that a brief continuance of several days would not have impacted either the district court's schedule or the defendants' ability to efficiently prepare for trial. 27 In light of the absence of bad faith on the part of the government, the minimal amount of substantive prejudice because of the cumulative nature of the tardily disclosed materials, and the availability of a much less severe sanction than striking witnesses with the effect of eviscerating the government's case, we find that the district court could most certainly have eliminated the minor prejudice with either a brief delay or a less severe sanction.