Opinion ID: 2815635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for Mistrial or Mid-Trial Continuance

Text: At the end of the first full day of trial, on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, Mr. Stuckey told the prosecutor he had received a telephone call earlier in the day from a person named “Teddy” who said he had “heard from this guy Finny[man] . . . 24 that maybe . . . [Calvin Jones] had something to do with Lee’ante [Brown] being killed.” When the prosecutor asked Mr. Stuckey “how it is that Finny[man] would know something about this,” Mr. Stuckey said he did not know but would try to talk further with Teddy. The prosecutor reported his conversation with Mr. Stuckey to appellant’s counsel on the evening of March 9, 2011. The next morning, Thursday, March 10, 2011, appellant’s counsel raised the issue with the trial judge and moved for a mistrial, stating that she needed time to investigate the information provided by Mr. Stuckey. The trial judge denied the motion, but he stated that appellant’s counsel should be given an opportunity to investigate the information while the trial proceeded, and he directed the prosecutor to make Mr. Stuckey available to appellant’s counsel for an interview. The prosecutor agreed to arrange a meeting between appellant’s counsel and Mr. Stuckey and to defer calling Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith as witnesses until appellant’s counsel had at least had a chance to speak with Mr. Stuckey. The prosecutor called other witnesses in what became an abbreviated trial session on March 10, 2011, and the judge recessed the trial until the following Monday. 25 Appellant’s counsel renewed her motion for a mistrial when the trial reconvened on Monday, March 14, 2011. Counsel reported that in the previous four days she had made considerable efforts to locate Teddy – interviewing Mr. Stuckey twice, obtaining Mr. Stuckey’s telephone records and calling every number listed in them, and going to two locations where Mr. Stuckey said Teddy hung out – all to no avail. Counsel stated further that she had no leads on locating or even identifying the person known as “Finnyman”; her investigators had not found anyone who knew the man, and Mr. Stuckey did not know the man’s real name. Appellant’s counsel told the judge, however, that Mr. Stuckey said he would likely see Teddy within the next two days and would try to get Teddy’s telephone number at that time. Asserting that it was critical to appellant’s defense, counsel asked for a mistrial or, at a minimum, a few additional days to investigate the matter further. The trial judge declined to grant either a mistrial or a further delay of the trial. The judge noted that “we know nothing about Teddy or his reliability or his motivation in calling Mr. Stuckey” and that “we know absolutely nothing about” Finnyman or “his reliability, the source of his information and whether or not this is anything beyond street rumor.” The judge concluded that the risk of losing jurors, who were told during the jury selection process that the trial would last only 26 a week, was too great to justify an additional delay beyond the extended weekend recess already provided. Appellant contends that the trial judge committed reversible error in denying his mid-trial request for a mistrial or a continuance. We disagree. A trial judge’s denial of a request for a mid-trial continuance to secure a witness is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion. Daley v. United States, 739 A.2d 814, 817 (D.C. 1999). Factors to be considered in determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred include the probative value of the absent witness’s proffered testimony, the likelihood the witness would have appeared had the continuance been granted, the diligence and good faith of the party seeking the continuance, the prejudice resulting from the denial of the continuance, any prejudice the opposing party would have suffered had the continuance been granted, and the duration of the requested continuance and any likely resulting disruption or delay of the trial. Gilliam v. United States, 80 A.3d 192, 202 (D.C. 2013). At a minimum, a party seeking a continuance to obtain the attendance of a witness must show “(1) who the missing witness is, (2) what the witness’[s] testimony would be, (3) the relevance and competence of that testimony, (4) that the witness could probably be obtained if the continuance were granted, and (5) 27 that the party seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence in trying to locate the witness.” Daley, 739 A.2d at 817 (quoting Bedney v. United States, 684 A.2d 759, 766 (D.C. 1996)). Appellant and his counsel certainly acted diligently in investigating the information disclosed by the prosecutor. Despite their best efforts, however, appellant and his counsel were unable to provide Finnyman’s real name, establish the basis of his knowledge of the shootings, or make a proffer of what he might say if located and called as a witness. Appellant thus failed to satisfy the minimum showing required for a mid-trial continuance and provided no ground on which the trial judge could have found Finnyman’s testimony relevant and competent or concluded that the denial of the request would be prejudicial to appellant. The trial judge nonetheless directed the prosecutor to make Mr. Stuckey available for a defense interview, recessed the trial over an extended weekend, and agreed to the re-ordering of the government’s witnesses to protect appellant’s ability to crossexamine Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith with information obtained through his counsel’s investigation. When those efforts failed to produce anything showing Finnyman’s alleged statement to be other than an unreliable street rumor, the judge reasonably concluded that any further delay of the trial, with its attendant risk of losing jurors, was not warranted in the circumstances. We find no abuse of discretion. 28