Opinion ID: 2581959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Continuance of July 17, 2002, Trial Date

Text: [¶ 30] On May 14, 2002, trial counsel requested that a trial subpoena be issued for Evanston Police Chief Russell Harvey. On June 12, 2002, the prosecution filed a motion to quash Chief Harvey's subpoena, or in the alternative to allow his testimony to be preserved by deposition, because Chief Harvey had previously scheduled a non-refundable trip to Alaska and would be unavailable to testify in person on July 17, 2002. The district court held a hearing on the motion on June 19, 2002 (within sixty days of the April 24, 2002, trial setting), during which hearing the appellant's trial counsel opposed the motion. Trial counsel stated that Chief Harvey was a vital witness for the appellant, that it was absolutely important that he testify in front of the jury, and that this was the one area that Mr. Whitney and I agree on completely, that Chief Harvey is vital to our case and his presence in front of the jury is vital. According to trial counsel, a deposition would also reveal trial strategy prematurely.... [¶ 31] In camera, trial counsel explained the appellant's trial strategy and Chief Harvey's essential role in regards to that strategy. At one point, the following colloquy occurred: [TRIAL COUNSEL]: ... Now, one thing that I tried to bring up to the Court's attention in chambers is this idea of a continuance. I've discussed this and, again, I note that Mr. Whitney and I are in total agreement here that the Chief needs to be a witness in person in this case. And Mr. Whitney is so strong about that, even though he's had objections in the past  ... THE COURT: Well, what do you say about a continuance? DEFENDANT WHITNEY: Well, I agree with [trial counsel]. I think ... Chief ... Harvey is critical to my case. THE COURT: No, what do you say about a continuance, aside from him? DEFENDANT WHITNEY: I agree with it. I want [Chief Harvey] to testify. And if his fishing trip  he made reservations two years prior, you know, it's not his fault or the Court's fault, you know. It just happened to fall on the date my trial was set. THE COURT: That's right. DEFENDANT WHITNEY: And I agree with that. [TRIAL COUNSEL]: So you would agree to a continuance? DEFENDANT WHITNEY: So yes, yes, I would agree, your Honor, to a continuance. The district court concluded that the appellant consented to continuing a trial if that is necessary, that  to put it fairly, the Defense would rather continue the trial rather than to have the testimony preserved by deposition. The district court did not rule on the motion at that time. [¶ 32] In a June 21, 2002, letter to the district court, trial counsel informed the court of the dates Mr. LaPier would be available to testify for the appellant if the district court decided to continue the trial, and noted that the month of October appears to be very open for Mr. LaPier, and certainly a trial date in that month would mean both parties would have ample time to line up all of their witnesses. I hope the Court will consider an October trial date. The letter also stated that Mr. Whitney is not opposed to a continuance. [¶ 33] On July 10, 2002, it appears that the appellant (by and through trial counsel) and the prosecutor formalized what occurred at the June 19, 2002, hearing and filed a Joint Motion to Vacate Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial and Reset for a Later Date. The motion, signed by trial counsel and the prosecutor, states that Chief Harvey would be unable to testify at the July 17, 2002, trial setting. In a July 11, 2002, order, the district court found just cause to grant the motion, vacated the July 17, 2002, trial setting, and reset the case for trial October 8, 2002.