Opinion ID: 2775033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: motion for recess

Text: Defendants Lewis and Barbary argue that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant Lewis an overnight recess to prepare herself and her witnesses to testify. We review a district court’s decision declining to recess a trial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Russell, 717 F.2d 518, 520 (11th Cir. 1983). The 61 Case: 13-10453 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 62 of 67 district court has broad discretion in the management of a trial, and we will not reverse absent a clear showing of abuse. United States v. Hilliard, 752 F.2d 578, 582 (11th Cir. 1985). “The trial judge must meet situations as they arise and to do this must have broad power to cope with the complexities and contingencies inherent in the adversary process. . . . If truth and fairness are not to be sacrificed, the judge must exert substantial control over the proceedings.” Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 86-87, 96 S. Ct. 1330, 1334-35 (1976). A criminal defendant has the right to testify on her own behalf. United States v. Byrd, 403 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 49, 107 S. Ct. 2704, 2708 (1987)). However, this right is not without limitation and must sometimes bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. Id. “[R]estrictions of a defendant’s right to testify may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.” Rock, 483 U.S. at 55-56, 107 S. Ct. at 2711. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Lewis’s motion for a recess to prepare to testify and obtain witnesses. The district court reasonably found that, at the time that Lewis requested a recess for additional time to prepare to testify, the trial had been going on for weeks, Lewis had received multiple warnings to be ready to present her case, and she already had the opportunity to discuss whether to testify with her attorney. Under these 62 Case: 13-10453 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 63 of 67 circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to decline Lewis’s request for additional time to prepare to testify. As to Lewis’s request for a recess to obtain the testimony of absent witnesses, in determining whether a district court abused its discretion in denying such a request we consider: “(1) the diligence of the defense in interviewing the witness and procuring her testimony; (2) the probability of obtaining the testimony within a reasonable time; (3) the specificity with which the defense was able to describe the witness’s expected knowledge or testimony; and (4) the degree to which such testimony was expected to be favorable to the accused, and the unique or cumulative nature of the testimony.” United States v. Alejandro, 118 F.3d 1518, 1523 (11th Cir. 1997). Here, the Alejandro factors clearly militate in favor of the district court’s decision denying Lewis’s request. First, Lewis indicated that she had not timely subpoenaed witnesses, showing a lack of diligence. Second, Lewis did not state that the witnesses would in fact testify if a recess were granted. Third, Lewis’s attorney did not offer much detail as to the expected testimony. And, finally, the expected testimony from the witnesses as proffered by Lewis’s counsel was not significantly favorable because, even assuming Lewis’s involvement in a legitimate trucking business, overwhelming evidence presented by the government showed that she was also part of an illegal narcotics-distribution conspiracy. Thus, 63 Case: 13-10453 Date Filed: 01/30/2015 Page: 64 of 67 we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lewis’s request for additional time to obtain absent witnesses.