Opinion ID: 161778
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion Based Upon Timing.

Text: 18 On June 21, the district court issued a discovery order requiring the defendant to file all motions and notices pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12.2 no later than 30 days following arraignment. R.O.A. Vol. I: 11. The order also warned that failure to comply with this order or to show good cause for not being able to comply may result in disallowance of use of evidence or defenses not disclosed. Id. Mr. Adams concedes that his failure to notify the government of the psychological report until three days prior to trial over a month past the prescribed deadline permits sanctions by the district court under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Aplt. Br. at 16-17. Nevertheless, Mr. Adams claims that the district court erred when it excluded this evidence as untimely. 19 The test for determining whether a witness was appropriately excluded for untimely disclosure was described in United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1988). In Wicker, the court considered three factors: (1) the reason for the delay in disclosing the witness; (2) whether the delay prejudiced the other party; and (3) the feasibility of curing any prejudice with a continuance. Id. 20 The court clearly weighed the first Wicker factor concerning the reason for the delay in identifying the proposed witness, noting that three months had passed since the defendant's indictment, that defense counsel knew or should have known of defendant's claim that he lied to the police in order to protect his girlfriend, and that concerns about the defendant's mental state and ability had been raised by the defendant's grandmother both prior to and at the plea hearing. R.O.A. Supp. Vol. I, at 6-7. 21 The court did not explicitly weigh the second factor, the potential prejudice to the government, or the third factor, the feasibility of granting a continuance. While the court in Wicker suggested that a district court should consider [the three factors] in determining if a sanction is appropriate, the court also noted that the three factors merely guide the district court and do not dictate the bounds of the court's discretion. Id. Furthermore, even in the absence of prejudice, a district court may suppress evidence that did not comply with discovery orders to maintain the integrity and schedule of the court... Id. The district court justifiably excluded the evidence on the basis of its unexplained untimeliness alone. 22 The record on appeal indicates, however, that the final two factors weigh strongly in favor of exclusion of the evidence. First, Mr. Adams's notice of intent to introduce expert psychological testimony only three days before a trial date, left the government no opportunity to conduct its own psychological examination of the defendant, or otherwise mount a rebuttal. The untimely notice seems significantly prejudicial to the government. 23 With regards to the third factor, the feasibility of a continuance, the government suggested during the hearing in limine that it would need up to 120 days to conduct its own psychological examination of Mr. Adams, as permitted under Rule 12.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. R.O.A. Supp. Vol. I, at 3. A continuance adequate to accommodate the described needs of the government would significantly delay the trial. We agree with the district court that its ruling could be sustained on the grounds of untimeliness alone. 24