Opinion ID: 1426895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Banks's request for compulsory process

Text: Banks argues that the district court should have compelled the appearance of three defense witnesses midway through trial. The district court declined to order the appearance of these witnesses because securing their presence would have taken some time and would have therefore required the case to be continued. Accordingly, our inquiry will focus on whether the district court properly refused to continue the case so that these witnesses could be made to appear. In determining whether to grant a continuance, the trial judge must balance the asserted need for the continuance against the hardship of the resulting delay, and should also consider the complexity of the case, the diligence of the party requesting a continuance, and the conduct of the opposing party. United States v. Voss, 787 F.2d 393, 401 (8th Cir.1986) (citations omitted). Because it is more familiar with the parties and the circumstances of the case, the district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a continuance, and its decision will be reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 401-02 (citations omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion here. After the defense commenced its case and had called four witnesses, Banks advised the court that he wished to call some additional witnesses who were in custody, but who had not yet been brought to court by the United States Marshals Service. These witnesses were Clyde Hatchett, Brandon White, and Frankie Webb. [5] Banks did not tender his list to the Marshals Service until the close of business on Friday (Banks commenced his case and spoke to the court about the absent witnesses on Monday morning) and, although the Marshals Service told Banks that it would need a writ or court order first thing Monday morning, Banks neglected to file the necessary motion with the court. Banks appeared principally interested in securing Hatchett's presence. The district court attempted to accommodate Banks's request, despite the fact that counsel failed to follow the rules. The district court asked the deputy marshal to [e]ither step aside from [the Marshals Service's] rule or solicit the assistance of the sheriff of the county in which Hatchett was incarcerated and offer to pay the sheriff for any expenses associated with bringing Hatchett to court. The deputy marshal explained that it was not feasible to bring any of the three witnesses sought by Banks to court that day, noting that Hatchett was incarcerated in Texas. The district court declined to grant a continuance so that these witnesses could be brought to court. Banks does not appear to seriously dispute that he failed to adequately follow the procedures for procuring the presence of these witnesses. Nor did he explain to the trial judge why these witnesses were material to his case, a pertinent consideration when a district court is considering a delay that may inconvenience jurors, consume resources, and disrupt the court's calendar. [6] It also bears mention that Banks had already examined Hatchett (who had been a government witness). In light of the fact that Banks did not comply with the necessary procedures, did not act in a timely manner, and did not give the district court any reason to believe that the witnesses he sought were material to his defense, we conclude that the district court's decision to not continue the trial was well within its discretion.