Opinion ID: 1211537
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Events and Circumstances

Text: David Gentry is charged that he    did unlawfully between March 6th and March 7th, 1985, in the County of Campbell, State of Wyoming, agree with one (1) or more persons that they or one (1) or more of them would commit a crime, to wit: delivery of cocaine   . Gentry never possessed and no one ever delivered cocaine under this indictment. Gentry provided two rides to Joseph Michael DeRohwer, who initially agreed to make but then decided against making a cocaine sale to undercover agent David Michael Lauck who was using the cover name of Dale Lucas. Whether or not Gentry knew that DeRohwer intended to make a cocaine sale was disputed at trial. Following the notorious 1985 grand jury episode in Campbell County, Gentry was arrested and DeRohwer, the principal actor, apparently disappeared. Gentry pleaded innocent on June 27, 1985. The court issued a case management order on July 13, including the schedule of trial preparation, and further particularized: 4. Not less than three (3) working days (Saturday, Sunday and Holidays excluded) prior to the pre-trial conference, each counsel will file with the Court and serve upon all other counsel (or pro se party): a. A list, with description, of all exhibits to be offered at trial; and b. A list of all witnesses (except rebuttal witnesses) to be called together with a short summary of the expected testimony of each;          5. THE DEFENDANT MAY BE AFFORDED RELIEF FROM REQUIREMENTS (a) AND (b) ABOVE: a. For good cause shown; and, b. Upon a motion filed and scheduled so as to be heard at least four (4) days before the pre-trial conference; and, c. Only if he has timely advised the State of his unwillingness to make the disclosures and has not availed himself of any disclosures by the State pursuant to this order. On August 12, the State filed a motion and demand for reciprocal discovery, requesting a list of defendant's witnesses, copies of witnesses' statements, reports, documents and other tangible evidence that defendant might produce at trial. The State also filed a demand for notice of alibi [1] and a response to the pretrial order, wherein the State listed no exhibits and its intent to call only two witnesses, Sheriff's Office Investigators David Lauck and Steven Hamilton. The filing by the State of witnesses and exhibits answered requirements of the pretrial management order and of Rule 18, W.R.Cr.P., Rule 16, W.R.C.P., [2] and the alibi disclosure rule, Rule 16.1, W.R.Cr.P., particularly subsection (b) thereof. A pretrial conference was held on September 4, 1985, and a pretrial conference summary was filed showing WITNESSES: as listed and EXHIBITS: none. The collaborator with the narcotics agent, Vincent Priest, was not listed, nor was DeRohwer, the principal in the drug buy effort. Consequently, listed witnesses for the prosecution did not include either of the two other participants with the narcotics agent, whose involvement was active compared to Gentry's involvement which was at the most only passive. On Friday, October 4, before the scheduled trial date of Monday, October 7, and in contravention of the pretrial filing and order, the district attorney's office advised defendant's counsel that DeRohwer would be presented as a witness. No motion to amend the pretrial filing or the filing required by the alibi notice request was ever submitted by the prosecution showing good cause or otherwise. The record is absolutely barren of evidence of prosecution compliance with the good cause shown criterion of Rule 16.1(e), W.R.Cr.P., as the exception to the witness disclosure rule. The prosecution sought relief from the witness disclosure requirement, but the burden was shifted to cast responsibility on the defendant to request a continuance. See Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 203, p. 745. The court did not require of the prosecution a motion or any showing for the nondisclosed witness to be excepted from the disclosure requirements. See United States v. Burkhalter, 735 F.2d 1327 (11th Cir.1984). Constitutional principles relating to the enforcement of the rule against the defendant and ignoring their requirement against the prosecution should be self-evident. [3]