Opinion ID: 172187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Last-Minute Witnesses

Text: Aguilera-Meza asserts that “[t]he government only informed [him] of the testimony of Robert[o] Cortez, Judy Romero, and Leticia Valesquez mere days before the trial.” Aplt. Br. at 32. Aguilera-Meza contends that this short notice prejudiced his defense by not providing sufficient preparation time. We review the admission of testimony from last-minute witnesses for abuse of discretion. United States v. Nevels, 490 F.3d 800, 802–03 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying this standard for “unlisted government witnesses”). We review de novo, however, whether the admission of such evidence violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 2007). We disagree with Aguilera-Meza’s characterization of these witnesses as “last minute.” The government listed these witnesses in its proposed witness list, which was filed one week before trial. R. Vol. I, Doc. 318 at 1–2. Moreover, 13 Aguilera-Meza does not identify how the timing of the government’s disclosure of the identified witnesses violated any court order. Even if we accept the assertion that the timing of the government’s witness disclosure hindered the ability to confront the witnesses, we reject AguileraMeza’s unsupported assertion that “[t]he trial court erred by denying [AguileraMeza] his right to confrontation.” Aplt. Br. at 33. “The Supreme Court has established that no constitutional right to pretrial discovery of witnesses exists in non-capital cases.” Nevels, 490 F.3d at 803 (citing Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977)) (emphasis omitted). Additionally, there is not a statute or rule of procedure requiring pretrial disclosure of non-expert witnesses. Id. This reasoning equally resolves Aguilera-Meza’s unsupported assertion that “[t]he District Court erred in allowing the testimony of the confidential informant, whose identity was not given . . . until the last minute, despite his early demand to identify the informant.” Aplt. Br. at 31. See United States v. Green, 178 F.3d 1099, 1108 (10th Cir. 1999) (rejecting the argument that “because [defendant] was unaware of the informant’s identity until trial, his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine the key witness against him was never provided . . . .” (quotation omitted)).