Opinion ID: 17689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sanction for late disclosure of evidence

Text: 12 The government challenges the district court's ruling excluding the color versions of the GIF images. The district court found that the government's failure to disclose the photographs to the defendant in the identical form it intended to produce them at trial was either an attempt to sandbag the defense or highly unprofessional conduct and therefore limited the government to the use of black and white images. 13 We review remedies for discovery violations imposed by a district court for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bentley, 875 F.2d 1114, 1118 (5th Cir.1989). In exercising its discretion, the district court should consider factors such as the reasons why disclosure was not made, the prejudice to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by granting a continuance, and other relevant circumstances. Id. The district court should impose the least severe sanction that will accomplish the desired result--prompt and full compliance with the court's discovery orders. See United States v. Sarcinelli, 667 F.2d 5, 7 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982). 14 First, the government reiterates its explanation for the delay presented at the hearing. Prior to the return of the superseding indictment, the black and white copies had been given to defense counsel as potential Rule 404(b) evidence. After the superseding indictment, which elevated the GIFs to intrinsic rather than extrinsic evidence, defense counsel never requested better images or copies of the computer disc. The district court rejected this explanation, finding instead that the reason disclosure was not made was the government's attempt to sandbag the defense or highly unprofessional conduct. This finding is not clearly erroneous. 15 Second, the district court made repeated inquiry into whether its order would result in prejudice to the government by asking the government's expert whether his testimony would be different if he were to base his answers on the color photos rather than the black and white photos under consideration at the pretrial hearing. The expert testified repeatedly that it would not. 16 Third, although the district court made no specific findings on this factor, potential for prejudice to the defendant was high because of the unique circumstances of this case: the computer disc had never been in Katz's possession, so the defendant had no information about the contents of the images other than what he learned during discovery. Further, Katz's defense was premised on expert testimony concerning the age of the models and it was necessary for his expert to examine the evidence and formulate an opinion prior to trial. 17 All three of these factors weigh in favor of affirming the district court's ruling. However, the government argues that a continuance would have been an appropriate and less severe sanction than exclusion of the evidence. See Sarcinelli, 667 F.2d at 7. Given the findings concerning the government's motives, which are not clearly erroneous, the testimony of the government's expert that viewing the excluded photos would not have changed his answer to the questions posed at the pretrial hearing, the high potential for prejudice to the defendant and the ruling that the photos are inadmissible on alternative grounds, see infra, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence.