Opinion ID: 437193
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rejection of State's Rebuttal Evidence

Text: 71 The state defendants desired to make an offer of proof in rebuttal to Dr. Jahns's testimony. The district court refused to consider the offer of proof because it was untimely. The state defendants were originally ordered to submit their offer of proof by September 26. Later, the court gave the state defendants an extension stretching until 15 days after Dr. Jahns testified. At the end of the 15-day period, the state defendants requested an additional four-week extension which was refused. Decisions relating to additional time for presenting evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Gilbert v. Lachapelle, 127 F.2d 750, 751 (D.C.Cir.1942). 72 Moreover, although the state defendants characterize the proferred testimony as previously unavailable comparative analysis of liquefaction phenomena, the proferred testimony was from an expert who had already testified at trial and may have been somewhat cumulative. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the state defendants' offer of proof.