Opinion ID: 1981146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Mr. Dockery's Request for a Continuance

Text: Mr. Dockery maintains that the trial court denied [him] of his right not to testify by refusing his request for a recess so he could obtain the presence of certain witnesses. He claims that the trial court made him choose between testifying and hav[ing] an opportunity to present a defense or refusing to do so and forgoing that opportunity. Id. at 17. The government claims that while Mr. Dockery sought to testify after calling all of his witnesses, he failed to explain then or now how his testimony would have differed if these other witnesses had testified before him. The government also asserts that it is not clear that a continuance would have enabled [him] to secure the witnesses he sought. Id. at 44. The denial of a continuance is a matter within the sound discretion of the court and is not subject to review absent clear abuse. Brown v. United States, 244 A.2d 487, 489 (D.C.1968) (citation omitted). A request for a continuance to secure witnesses [requires a] show [ing as to] `who the[ ] [witnesses] [we]re, what their testimony [would have been], that it w[as][ ] relevant under the issues in the case and competent, (and) that the witnesses [could] probably be obtained if the continuance [wa]s granted. Holt v. United States, 381 A.2d 1388, 1391 (D.C.1978) (quoting Neufield v. United States, 73 App.D.C. 174, 179, 118 F.2d 375, 380 (D.C.Cir.1941)) (other citation omitted). A showing also must be made that due diligence has been used to obtain the[ ] witnesses['s] attendance for the trial. Neufield, supra, 118 F.2d at 380. After the government rested its case, the only identified witness available for the defense was Mr. Dockery. He declared that he was not prepared to testify and unwilling to testify unless he can be guaranteed that ... the other witnesses that he want[ed] will be made available. Id. at 1177. However, he never directly requested a continuance. In any event, his counsel identified two of the witnesses as Margaret Smith ... and Glenn Thompson. Id. And, the record indicates that he tried to ensure their appearance with assistance from the prosecutor and by way of a bench warrant that the trial court had previously issued. Id. at 1177, 1179. But Mr. Dockery failed to indicate the nature of the witnesses' testimony or how their testimony was relevant to the case. In an effort to encourage him to explain his position, the court stated that it [did]n't quite understand how [his] testimony depends on whether [the] other witnesses are available [], or not.... [He] can only testify as to things in [his] firsthand knowledge which shouldn't change depending on who else is [going to] testify. Id. at 1177-78. Mr. Dockery only insisted, however, that he was not willing to testify. Id. at 1178-79. He offered no further explanation then and fails to do so now. On this record we see no abuse of trial court discretion in the direction to Mr. Dockery to testify at that point or rest his case, since he failed to satisfy the Holt or Neufield factors. [12]