Opinion ID: 52785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Beatriz Marrero

Text: Marrero challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for a continuance and mistrial. The denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bowe, 221 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir. 2000). A district court’s denial of a motion for new trial based upon the ground that the government withheld evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434, 1438 (11th Cir. 1998). “This issue must be decided in light of the circumstances presented, focusing upon the reasons for the 19 continuance offered to the trial court when the request was denied.” United States v. Knowles, 66 F.3d 1146, 1160-61 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation marks omitted). To the extent Marrero makes a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, this claim is reviewed de novo. United States v. Noriega, 117 F.3d 1206, 1218 (11th Cir. 1997). During direct examination, Marrero testified that by January 2000 she had lost all of her money and credit status. With such limited resources, she argued, she could not have made the $100,000 loan to Diaz as alleged. On crossexamination, the government challenged this assertion by questioning Marrero about an equity check from First Union National Bank for $45,495 on September 7, 2000. Marrero stated she believed these funds went into working capital for the San Mar Insurance Agency. The government, however, showed Marrero a bank statement which illustrated that no deposits had been made into the San Mar Insurance Agency from September to December 2000. Marrero’s counsel then requested production of the equity check and the government agreed to provide a copy. Prior to redirect, Marrero’s counsel again requested production of the check, but the government claimed it was not available. Marrero then testified that she could not recall the purpose of the check without seeing it, but stated that the money had not gone to Diaz. Marrero’s counsel then requested the district court to 20 grant a reasonable opportunity to obtain the check. The Government’s rebuttal case ended that evening, Thursday, July 8, 2004, and the court granted Marrero’s request for surrebuttal for the following Monday, if the check became available. On Monday morning, Marrero’s counsel informed the court that pursuant to a subpoena issued to the bank, the equity check would be available later that day. Marrero’s counsel, therefore, requested a one day continuance. The government objected, alleging that the bank statement presented at trial was in the possession of the defendant and that the defense had been given ample time to prepare. The district court then denied the request for a further continuance. Later that day, Marrero secured the check and presented it to the district court. The district court, however, denied Marrero’s motion to reopen the case. Marrero’s counsel proffered that if Marrero had been permitted to testify, she would have stated that after reviewing the check, she recalled that it was deposited by her mother into her mother’s bank account, and the funds were to repay her mother for a loan she had given to Marrero to pay certain debts. According to Marrero, the loan from her mother was given before she met Diaz. Marrero also moved for a mistrial at this point. The government responded that Marrero’s proffer was dubious because the equity credit line was on Marrero’s mother’s house, and it would not make sense for Marrero to repay her mother with money 21 from her mother’s home. Marrero responded that the credit line was drawn on Marrero’s house, not her mother’s. The court then inquired as to whether the government had in fact disclosed the bank statement to defense counsel as had been alleged earlier. The government stated it would have to check. Defense counsel noted that, as an indication that it had not been provided, the bank statement admitted at trial did not contain a Bates stamp. The district court denied the motion for a mistrial, finding that the check was just “one little piece of a lot of evidence,” and Marrero, “having testified, could have anticipated or addressed these issues if she wished.” The district court commented further on the check issue when, in a February 2, 2005 order, it rejected Marrero’s post-verdict motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misrepresentation of evidence and discovery violations. In this order, the district court stated that the issue of the check did not have “any tendency to mislead the jury and prejudice the accused,” especially because “the matter was isolated when compared to the overwhelming evidence of guilty [sic] against Marrero and other impeachment against Diaz, and that none of this was tactically or deliberately placed before the jury by the Government in order to prejudice the defendant.” The district court also stated that “Marrero’s testimony during her case was so contradicted with other lies that this issue was de minimus in terms of the jury’s 22 weighing her credibility.” The decision to grant a continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the district court. Hicks v. Wainwright, 633 F.2d 1146, 1148-49 (5th Cir. 1981) (“The matter of continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge, and it is not every denial of a request for more time that violates due process even if the party fails to offer evidence or is compelled to defend without counsel.”) (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 849, 11 L. Ed. 2d 921 (1964)). Here, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Marrero’s motion for a continuance. First, the bank statement used by the government to establish that the credit line had been used was not introduced as part of the government’s case in chief, but, rather, during cross-examination for impeachment purposes. Second, the government did not have a copy of the check in question. Third, the district court granted Marrero from Thursday evening until Monday morning to acquire a copy of her own check, which she failed to do. Finally, as the district court noted, this was but one small piece of a much larger case. As such, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Marrero’s motions for a continuance and a mistrial. Marrero also argues that the district court should have granted her motion for a mistrial because of prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutorial misconduct is 23 established through a two-part test: (1) the questionable conduct must be improper, and (2) the questionable conduct must prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the defendant. United States v. Gonzalez, 122 F.3d 1383, 1389 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Eyster, 948 F.2d 1196, 1206 (11th Cir. 1991). The ultimate focus is whether the accused received a fair trial. United States v. Crutchfield, 26 F.3d 1098, 1100 (11th Cir. 1994). After a review of the record as a whole, we conclude that Marrero has failed to establish that the government’s actions here were improper, and, even if such a showing were made, in light of the overwhelming evidence against her, Marrero cannot demonstrate that the conduct prejudicially affected her substantial rights.