Opinion ID: 178775
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the district court err in denying Wright's motion for a mid-trial continuance?

Text: Next, Wright argues that the district court improperly denied his request for a one-day mid-trial continuance so that Lavaty could conduct further forensic testing. Wright claims that the testing was necessary to rebut the government's argument that the mIRC file server was installed long before 2002 (when Dittfurth moved in with Wright). Practically, this weakened Wright's defensethat Dittfurth was the person responsible for the child pornography. According to the government, Wright installed the mIRC program on his computer in November 2000. On Day 7 of the trial, during voir dire, the prosecutor asked Lavaty his opinion about when Wright installed the mIRC program on his computer. The prosecutor tried to establish that the program was installed in 2000, not 2002 as Lavaty had testified. The prosecutor's theory was that the 2002 creation date for the mIRC fileswhich Lavaty testified showed that Wright installed the program in 2002was due to the installation of a newer version of the mIRC program, thus replacing the older 2000 version. Lavaty admitted that this was a possible explanation, but also offered reasons for discounting such a theory. After the prosecutor asked, Did you test that? Lavaty conceded that he had not. Wright argues that the government's theorythat the mIRC program had been installed in 2000was not disclosed to the defense until just five days before the start of trial. When Lavaty admitted on the stand that he had not tested for the reasons he gave for a 2002 installation date, Wright asked for a one-day continuance so that Lavaty could conduct the requisite tests. The court denied the request. Wright argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying Wright's request for a continuance. We disagree. First, on January 11, six days before the start of trial, Wright moved for a continuance because the government had apparently just disclosed (five days prior) an expert report alleging that the mIRC and file-server programs were installed in 2000. Wright told the district court that the continuance was necessary because the government's newly disclosed evidence relates specifically to Count 1 of the indictment which is the ten-year mandatory minimum count in the report of the forensic examination which was done just this last Tuesday by their file server expert who is the guy who wrote the program. The jury acquitted Wright of Count 1. Therefore, to the extent that the continuance would have allowed Wright to better prepare his defense as to Count 1, he has not established prejudice. See Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d at 1139 (holding that the defendant must establish prejudice from the denial of a continuance). However, it is not entirely clear that the government's theory about the 2000 installation date related only to Count 1. To the extent it related to the other alleged counts, Wright was given a total of eleven days (seven business days) prior to the start of trial to rebut the government's evidence. This was more than enough time. See United States v. Barrett, 703 F.2d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir.1983) ([F]airness requires that adequate notice be given the defense to check the findings and conclusions of the government's experts. (quoting United States v. Kelly, 420 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir.1969) (internal quotation marks omitted))). Moreover, despite Lavaty's concession that he did not test for the 2002 theory, he provided persuasive support during his testimony even in the absence of testing. When the prosecutor concluded his voir dire, defense counsel established on direct examination that Lavaty's 2002 theory was certainly possible. Indeed, Lavaty testified that it was his belief that the mIRC program was installed on Wright's computer in December 2002. Cf. Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d at 1138 (denial of the continuance resulted in the defendant's inability to present any evidence that might rebut the government's medical assertions (emphasis added)). As we held above, Wright was given ample opportunity to prepare his defense. Yet even without considering the fourteen months the defense team had to conduct forensic testing, it had over a week to prepare expert testimony in response to the government's theory that Wright installed the file-server software in 2000. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wright's motion for a one-day mid-trial continuance.