Opinion ID: 780494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Grotto's Motion for a Continuance and Leave To Reopen

Text: 18 At approximately 7:00 p.m. on the third day of trial testimony, having presented his witnesses and introduced several photographs in evidence, Grotto rested his case. The trial judge then explained to the jury that it had now heard all of the testimony and that the attorneys would make their closing arguments the next day: 19 Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your patience tonight. We were able to finish the testimony. We will have closing arguments and final instructions of the Court tomorrow. The People have rested their case in chief earlier, the defense has now rested its case. You've heard all the testimony, we have all the evidence in the record. 20 (Tr. 524-25.) 21 On the following morning, Grotto moved to reopen his case, requesting a continuance in order to present additional evidence characterized as newly discovered. (Tr. 531.) Defense attorney James W. Winslow pointed out that the prosecution, having elicited testimony from defense witnesses that Grotto had taken the fourth picture on the four-negative strip introduced as PX 11, would undoubtedly argue that Grotto must also have taken the first three pictures on that strip, which were taken at the townhouse. Winslow stated that, during the previous night, prints of two of the negatives that were part of PX 11 were found ( id. ) and had handwriting on the back that Grotto's family believes[ is] Rochelle's writing (Tr. 533). He requested a continuance in order to determine from Rochelle whether or not the handwriting was hers and then to have her testify that the pictures were taken not by Grotto but by Ralph: 22 MR. WINSLOW: .... Today is Friday. Our first request would be that there be a continuance until Monday morning so that these photos and the writing on the back of them can be presented to Ralph and Rochelle so that they can either verify or not that it is, as my client's family believes, Rochelle's writing. 23 (Tr. 532-33.) Winslow explained: 24 [T]he testimony would be that ... it was Ralph who took all four of those photographs..., that that film was taken back to Rochester when [Ralph and Rochelle] returned there after the wedding, and that once those negatives were made into pictures, that they were sent down here after being inscribed .... 25 (Tr. 535.) 26 In the alternative, Winslow asked for a continuance until 2 p.m. that day in order 27 to fax up [to Rochester] the reverse, the rear of those two pictures so that we can determine with certainty or as much as we can whether or not, in fact, that is Rochelle Grotto's handwriting, and then immediately have Rochelle and Ralph Grotto get on a plane and come down here to testify at two o'clock, if at all possible. 28 (Tr. 533-34.) 29 As a third alternative, Winslow sought permission to call as a witness immediately Renee Planke, whom he described as a niece or a family member of the Grottos (Tr. 535, 533). Winslow stated that Planke had received a card sent by Ralph and Rochelle; that Grotto's family believed the handwriting on the card was that of Rochelle ( see Tr. 533); and that to Winslow's confessedly inexpert eye, the handwriting on the newly discovered pictures and that on the card appeared to be the same or similar ( see id. ). Winslow proposed to have Planke identify the writing on the card as that of Rochelle; then 30 to show her ... the two photographs that were found in the album last night and to ask her to identify whether or not from the card that she received that she believes it's the same handwriting as is on the back of the pictures. 31 (Tr. 535-36.) 32 The prosecution opposed any continuance. The Assistant District Attorney (ADA) pointed out that PX 11, containing the negatives in question, had been introduced prior to the luncheon break the day before. He argued that that evidence was being developed as they continued to call their witnesses. (Tr. 534.) He also pointed out that Rochelle had been one of the witnesses listed in Grotto's pretrial list of witnesses but simply was not called to testify. 33 The trial judge denied Grotto's requests for a continuance and for permission to reopen the evidence. As to the proposed testimony by Rochelle that the handwriting on the back of the prints was hers, the court stated that the evidence that the defense ... seeks to introduce now after the defense has rested ... is hardly conclusive with respect to the defendant's guilt or non-guilt .... (Tr. 536.) The court stated that Grotto's guilt was also not conclusively shown by the evidence as to the sequence of shots shown on the negatives, and that each side was free to argue what inferences the jury should draw. The court denied Grotto's request to reopen the evidence to call Planke as a witness, indicating that it was unpersuaded that Planke would have sufficient expertise to make the comparison of the two handwritings and draw the conclusion that the handwriting is Rochelle's. (Tr. 551.) 34 The court stated further that the supposedly new evidence should have been discovered by Grotto earlier: 35 [I]t seems to the Court this issue of the negatives and the sequence of the negatives has been on the table in this trial from virtually the first day, and that it was incumbent upon the defense to move more expeditiously if it wished to challenge that any more than it has already done by its examination and cross-examination of witnesses. 36 ( Id. ) 37