Opinion ID: 511846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuance and Motion for Mistrial

Text: 41 The County argues that the district court erred by adjourning the jury trial for twelve weeks between December 1985 and March 1986 and by refusing to grant a mistrial. A decision whether to order a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir.1985). Experience tells us that in most situations we should defer to the trial judge's decision in granting or denying the continuance. Id. Similarly, because of the unique ability of the district court to estimate the needs of a particular case, the denial of a mistrial will be upheld absent a clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 790 F.2d 789, 795 (9th Cir.1986). 42 The County's motion relied on the affidavit of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a psychology consultant, which stated: 43 I believe the recess in the trial is likely to have helped jurors to have solidified whatever pro-plaintiff orientation they had developed by hearing a major portion of the plaintiff's case, and I believe the process of refreshing the jurors' memories, which will inevitably occur, further disadvantages the defendant. 44 In denying the request for a mistrial, the court stated that the twenty days of trial held prior to the continuance did not constitute a principal part of Briscoe's case: 45 I must reject out of hand Dr. Loftus' proposition as applied here. Insofar as to the delay is concerned, it was clearly a gain for the defendant and a loss for the plaintiff. 46 Up to the Christmas recess the jury could only have had vague and inconclusive notions about the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff's evidence is too complex and much too technical to have been digested by the jury in the first twenty days. 47 Although continuing the trial nine additional weeks after the holiday recess to avoid FICA deductions was somewhat unusual, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The County has offered no evidence to support the proposition that the jury heard a major portion of the plaintiff's case prior to adjournment. This fact was essential to Dr. Loftus' theory. 2 Cases cited by the County dealing with prejudice to plaintiffs from midtrial continuances also are unavailing to indicate that such a delay prejudices defendants. The denial of the motion for a mistrial is affirmed.