Opinion ID: 705158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion for continuance of jury selection

Text: 54 As previously noted, Knowles, Squires, Wright, and co-defendants Fitzwater and Newman were originally to be tried together. On the morning jury selection was to begin, however, Fitzwater announced that he desired to enter a guilty plea, and the district court continued jury selection until the afternoon. Following Fitzwater's plea, Newman announced that he was considering entering a guilty plea but had not finalized his decision. Squires and Wright requested that the court again continue jury selection based on the possibility that Newman might enter a guilty plea. The district court denied the request and jury selection began that afternoon. Newman entered a guilty plea the following day. The court gave the appellants the opportunity to propose curative measures to explain Newman's absence to the jury. The appellants requested that the court not give any curative instruction, arguing that to do so would only draw more attention to Newman's absence. On appeal, the appellants contend that they were unduly prejudiced by Newman's sudden disappearance after jury selection had already begun, and that the court could have alleviated the problem by briefly delaying jury selection. 55 Whether to grant a continuance is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion. 55 This issue must be decided in light of the circumstances presented, focusing upon the reasons for the continuance offered to the trial court when the request was denied. 56 56 At the time the appellants requested the continuance, the district court had no assurance that Newman would enter a guilty plea. When Newman did enter the plea, the appellants were offered the opportunity to propose a curative instruction, but declined. They have not demonstrated that they were prejudiced by the denial of the continuance. Under these circumstances, we think the decision not to grant a continuance based on the possibility that one defendant may enter a guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion. 57