Opinion ID: 785897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Continue

Text: 12 Armstrong argues his due process rights were violated when the trial court denied his motion for a continuance to secure the presence of the out-of-state witnesses. For support, Armstrong contends Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 122 S.Ct. 877, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002), held the denial of a continuance by a state court in a murder trial in order to secure the presence of witnesses violated that Petitioner's due process rights thereby depriving him of a fair trial. Armstrong misreads Lee. In Lee, the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the due process claim. Instead, the Court addressed whether Lee's due process claim was procedurally barred by the application of state law independent of the federal question. Holding Lee was not procedurally barred by the technical application of state law, the Supreme Court remanded Lee's due process claim so the district court could analyze the merits of the claim. Id. at 387-88, 122 S.Ct. 877. Because we address the merits of this claim, Lee does not control the outcome of this issue. 13 Armstrong did not specifically inform the trial court when the absent witnesses would arrive for trial, nor did Armstrong inform the trial court about the substance of the absent witnesses' testimony. In deciding the continuance issue, the Missouri Court of Appeals stated Armstrong's argument does not yield a clue about what [his out-of-state] witnesses would have testified to or how their testimony would have aided the defense. The Missouri Court of Appeals also concluded the trial record revealed Armstrong could not have secured the presence of his witnesses any time in the reasonably foreseeable future. 14 The district court concluded the trial court's denial of Armstrong's motion for a continuance, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmance of that denial, was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. We agree. The Supreme Court has recognized [t]rial judges necessarily require a great deal of latitude in scheduling trials. Not the least of their problems is that of assembling the witnesses, lawyers, and jurors at the same place at the same time, and this burden counsels against continuances except for compelling reasons. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983). Consequently, a trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for a continuance. Id. The trial court heard Armstrong's request for a continuance, but was not provided the expected testimony of the absent witnesses nor was the court advised when these witnesses would be available to testify. Without some basis to delay Armstrong's murder trial to await the possible arrival of absent witnesses with unknown testimony, the trial court denied the continuance motion. Because we see no sign the trial court abused its broad discretion in denying the continuance motion, we hold AEDPA's standards for habeas relief have not been met.