Court Opinion

ID: 3003792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-24 22:32:00.507573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:49:39.117667
License: Public Domain

NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION
                           Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith
                                    FED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ32.1

            United States Court of Appeals
                                  ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit
                                  Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604

                                ArguedȱNovemberȱ17,ȱ2009
                                DecidedȱNovemberȱ24,ȱ2009

                                           Before

                          FRANKȱH.ȱEASTERBROOK,ȱChiefȱJudge

                          ILANAȱDIAMONDȱROVNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge

                          DIANEȱS.ȱSYKES,ȱCircuitȱJudge

No.ȱ09Ȭ1384

UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA,                           AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict
     PlaintiffȬAppellee,                            CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois,
                                                    EasternȱDivision.
       v.
                                                    No.ȱ07ȱCRȱ112Ȭ1
KEITHȱCOOK,
     DefendantȬAppellant.                           RubenȱCastillo,
                                                    Judge.

                                         OȱRȱDȱEȱR

             OnȱtheȱsecondȬtoȬlastȱdayȱofȱKeithȱCook’sȱtrialȱforȱembezzlementȱandȱfalsifying
unionȱrecords,ȱjustȱbeforeȱtheȱgovernmentȱrested,ȱCook’sȱlawyersȱinformedȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt
thatȱheȱwouldȱtestifyȱbutȱtheyȱneededȱtimeȱtoȱhelpȱhimȱprepare.ȱȱCounselȱaskedȱtheȱcourtȱto
adjournȱforȱtheȱday,ȱbutȱtheȱcourtȱdeniedȱthisȱrequest.ȱȱCookȱthenȱtestified,ȱandȱonȱtheȱnext
dayȱofȱtrialȱwasȱfoundȱguiltyȱofȱbothȱcharges.ȱȱOnȱappealȱheȱchallengesȱtheȱdenialȱofȱhis
requestȱforȱaȱcontinuance.ȱȱWeȱupholdȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱrulingȱandȱaffirmȱCook’s
convictions.ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
             Throughȱhisȱworkȱasȱaȱrailroadȱconductor,ȱCookȱbecameȱsecretaryȬtreasurerȱofȱhis
localȱtransportationȱunion.ȱȱHeȱservedȱfromȱ2002ȱuntilȱ2004,ȱwhenȱanȱauditorȱdiscovered
No.ȱ09Ȭ1384                                                                            Pageȱ2

thatȱCookȱhadȱwrittenȱhimselfȱaȱnumberȱofȱunauthorizedȱchecksȱonȱunionȱaccountsȱtotaling
overȱ$45,000.ȱȱFollowingȱanȱinvestigationȱtheȱgovernmentȱchargedȱCookȱwithȱembezzling
theȱassetsȱofȱaȱlaborȱorganization,ȱ29ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ501(c),ȱandȱmakingȱaȱfalseȱentryȱinȱunion
recordsȱrequiredȱtoȱbeȱkeptȱbyȱlaw,ȱid.ȱ§ȱ439(c).ȱȱOverȱtheȱnextȱ17ȱmonths,ȱCookȱtwice
succeededȱinȱgettingȱhisȱappointedȱcounselȱreplaced—theȱsecondȱtimeȱonȱtheȱeveȱof
trial—andȱtwiceȱtheȱpartiesȱreachedȱaȱpleaȱagreementȱonlyȱtoȱhaveȱCookȱchangeȱhisȱmindȱat
theȱchangeȬofȬpleaȱhearing.ȱ

        Onceȱtrialȱbeganȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱscheduleȱrequiredȱmultipleȱbreaksȱinȱthe
proceedings,ȱsoȱtheȱtrialȱranȱSeptemberȱ2Ȭ3,ȱ8Ȭ9,ȱ12,ȱandȱ15,ȱ2008.ȱȱOnȱFriday,ȱSeptemberȱ12,
followingȱaȱtwoȬdayȱrecess,ȱdefenseȱcounselȱtoldȱtheȱcourtȱthatȱCookȱhadȱdecidedȱon
Tuesdayȱthatȱheȱwouldȱtestify,ȱbutȱtheyȱhadȱnotȱsucceededȱinȱmeetingȱwithȱhimȱon
WednesdayȱorȱThursdayȱtoȱgoȱoverȱhisȱtestimony.ȱȱCounselȱexplainedȱthatȱCook,ȱwhoȱwas
onȱbond,ȱhadȱmissedȱmultipleȱappointmentsȱwithȱthemȱduringȱtheȱrecessȱbecauseȱheȱwas
calledȱinȱtoȱwork,ȱandȱtrafficȱthatȱmorningȱhadȱpreventedȱhimȱfromȱarrivingȱatȱtheirȱoffice
earlyȱenoughȱtoȱprepare.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱthisȱlackȱofȱpreparation,ȱCook’sȱcounselȱmovedȱforȱa
continuanceȱuntilȱMonday,ȱSeptemberȱ15.ȱȱProsecutorsȱopposedȱtheȱmotion,ȱarguingȱthat
theyȱalwaysȱhadȱbelievedȱCookȱwouldȱtestifyȱandȱthatȱheȱhadȱbeenȱgivenȱadequateȱtimeȱto
prepareȱgivenȱtheȱdelaysȱinȱbringingȱtheȱcaseȱtoȱtrial.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱagreedȱthatȱthereȱhadȱbeen
“ampleȱopportunity”ȱtoȱprepare.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱexplainedȱthatȱtheȱcaseȱhadȱbeenȱ“problematic”
toȱgetȱtoȱtrialȱevenȱthoughȱitȱwasȱnotȱcomplicated,ȱandȱonceȱtheȱtrialȱgotȱunderwayȱCook
hadȱnotȱmadeȱitȱaȱpriorityȱorȱtakenȱadvantageȱofȱtheȱ“veryȱliberal”ȱschedule.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱalso
notedȱthatȱitȱhadȱanotherȱcaseȱscheduledȱforȱtrialȱimmediatelyȱafterȱCook’s,ȱandȱwithȱonly
oneȱjuryȱroomȱitȱcouldȱnotȱ“riskȱanyȱfurtherȱday”ȱinȱtheȱcase.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱwhatȱtheȱcourt
characterizedȱasȱCook’sȱ“machinations”ȱinȱpreventingȱtheȱtrialȱfromȱstartingȱsoonerȱandȱhis
“audacityȱtoȱnotȱprepareȱandȱtoȱwantȱtoȱtestify,”ȱtheȱcourtȱdeniedȱtheȱmotion.ȱȱButȱtheȱcourt
didȱrecessȱforȱanȱearlyȱandȱlongerȱlunchȱtoȱallowȱCookȱsomeȱtimeȱtoȱprepare;ȱafterȱlunch
Cookȱtookȱtheȱstand.ȱȱTrialȱconcludedȱonȱMondayȱwithȱclosingȱarguments,ȱandȱtheȱjury
returnedȱguiltyȱverdictsȱonȱbothȱchargesȱlateȱthatȱsameȱday.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱlaterȱsentencedȱCook
toȱaȱtotalȱofȱoneȱyearȱandȱaȱdayȱinȱprison.ȱ

        Weȱreviewȱtheȱdenialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱforȱabuseȱofȱdiscretionȱandȱwillȱnotȱreverse
absentȱaȱshowingȱofȱactualȱprejudice.ȱȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱ598,ȱ601ȱ(7thȱCir.
2003);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱTolliver,ȱ937ȱF.2dȱ1183,ȱ1187Ȭ88ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1991).ȱȱAȱdistrictȱcourtȱmay
evaluateȱanyȱnumberȱofȱfactorsȱinȱdecidingȱwhetherȱaȱcontinuanceȱisȱjustified,ȱincludingȱthe
ageȱandȱcomplexityȱofȱtheȱcase,ȱtheȱamountȱofȱtimeȱalreadyȱmadeȱavailableȱforȱpreparation
andȱtheȱdefendant’sȱroleȱinȱshorteningȱtheȱeffectiveȱpreparationȱtime,ȱwhetherȱtheȱdefendant
hasȱtriedȱtoȱ“game”ȱtheȱsystem,ȱtheȱavailabilityȱofȱdiscovery,ȱtheȱlikelihoodȱthatȱa
continuanceȱwillȱsatisfyȱtheȱdefendant’sȱneeds,ȱwhetherȱtheȱgovernmentȱopposesȱthe
No.ȱ09Ȭ1384                                                                                  Pageȱ3

proposedȱcontinuance,ȱtheȱinconvenienceȱorȱhardshipȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱorȱothers,ȱandȱthe
likelihoodȱthatȱdenyingȱaȱcontinuanceȱwillȱprejudiceȱtheȱdefendant.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.
Williams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱ385,ȱ390ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009);ȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱatȱ601;ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱChiappetta,
289ȱF.3dȱ995,ȱ999ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002).ȱȱTheȱimportanceȱofȱanyȱsingleȱfactorȱdependsȱonȱthe
individualȱcircumstancesȱofȱaȱcase,ȱandȱassigningȱtheȱrelativeȱweightȱofȱtheȱfactorsȱisȱbest
leftȱtoȱtheȱdiscretionȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt.ȱȱWilliams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱatȱ389;ȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱatȱ601.ȱȱ

         Twoȱcasesȱwithȱoppositeȱoutcomesȱhelpȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱtheseȱfactors.ȱ
InȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱFarr,ȱweȱheldȱthatȱtheȱtrialȱjudgeȱdidȱnotȱabuseȱhisȱdiscretionȱinȱdenying
theȱdefendant’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱcontinuanceȱmadeȱonȱtheȱmorningȱofȱtrial.ȱȱ297ȱF.3dȱ651ȱ(7th
Cir.ȱ2002).ȱȱWeȱreasonedȱthatȱtheȱdenialȱwasȱproperȱbecauseȱtheȱdefendantȱhadȱbeenȱgranted
twoȱcontinuancesȱalreadyȱandȱcounsel’sȱlackȱofȱpreparationȱforȱtrialȱclearlyȱresultedȱfrom
theȱdefendant’sȱconsistentȱrefusalȱtoȱcooperateȱwithȱhisȱattorneyȱandȱassistȱinȱthe
preparationȱofȱhisȱdefense.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ656.ȱȱWeȱconcludedȱthatȱweȱwouldȱnotȱfindȱerrorȱinȱthe
denialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱ“[w]hereȱaȱdefendant’sȱobstinateȱbehaviorȱplayedȱaȱsignificantȱpart
inȱunderminingȱtheȱabilityȱofȱcounselȱtoȱprepareȱforȱtrial.”ȱȱId.ȱȱConversely,ȱinȱUnitedȱStates
v.ȱHeron,ȱweȱheldȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱabusedȱitsȱdiscretionȱinȱdenyingȱaȱcontinuance
whereȱonȱtheȱdayȱbeforeȱtrialȱaȱkeyȱprosecutionȱwitnessȱhadȱchangedȱhisȱplannedȱtestimony
inȱaȱmannerȱthatȱportrayedȱtheȱdefendantȱasȱanȱactive,ȱratherȱthanȱreluctant,ȱparticipantȱin
theȱtransportationȱofȱdrugs.ȱȱ564ȱF.3dȱ879,ȱ881Ȭ83ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱWeȱnotedȱthatȱthe
defendantȱhadȱessentiallyȱnoȱtimeȱtoȱprepareȱforȱtheȱchangedȱtestimonyȱandȱdidȱnot
contributeȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱpressure,ȱandȱthatȱaȱcontinuanceȱwouldȱhaveȱallowedȱhimȱto
investigateȱthisȱ“crucialȱpiece”ȱofȱnewȱevidence.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ883.ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
         InȱdenyingȱCook’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱcontinuance,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱageȱof
theȱcase,ȱCook’sȱroleȱinȱshorteningȱtheȱavailableȱtimeȱforȱpreparation,ȱCook’sȱprevious
“machinations”ȱinȱdelayingȱtheȱcaseȱforȱtrial,ȱandȱtheȱinconvenienceȱaȱpostponementȱwould
causeȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱgivenȱitsȱpendingȱcaseȱload.ȱȱAlthoughȱtheseȱareȱacceptable
considerations,ȱseeȱChiappetta,ȱ289ȱF.3dȱatȱ999;ȱWilliams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱatȱ389,ȱCookȱarguesȱthatȱthe
districtȱcourtȱnonethelessȱabusedȱitsȱdiscretionȱbecauseȱanyȱinconvenienceȱtoȱtheȱcourt
wouldȱhaveȱbeenȱminimalȱwhileȱdenyingȱtheȱcontinuanceȱdirectlyȱprejudicedȱhisȱrightȱto
testify.ȱȱCook’sȱjuryȱreturnedȱguiltyȱverdictsȱatȱalmostȱ5:00ȱp.m.ȱonȱMonday,ȱsoȱtheȱcourt
guessedȱcorrectlyȱthatȱpostponingȱhisȱtestimonyȱuntilȱthatȱmorningȱwouldȱhaveȱpushedȱthe
trialȱintoȱTuesdayȱandȱdelayedȱtheȱstartȱofȱtheȱcourt’sȱnextȱtrial.ȱȱWhateverȱCookȱmightȱthink
aboutȱtheȱsignificanceȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱofȱlosingȱanotherȱdayȱfromȱitsȱschedule,ȱtheȱjudgeȱhad
discretionȱtoȱassessȱtheȱburdenȱonȱhisȱcaseȱloadȱalongȱwithȱanyȱofȱtheȱotherȱrelevantȱfactors.ȱ
SeeȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱatȱ601.ȱȱWeȱhaveȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱ“typicalȱreasonsȱtoȱdenyȱaȱcontinuance
areȱthatȱtheȱdefendantȱshortenedȱherȱownȱpreparationȱtimeȱandȱthatȱaȱdelayȱwillȱburdenȱthe
court.”ȱȱWilliams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱatȱ390.ȱȱCook’sȱfailureȱtoȱmeetȱwithȱhisȱattorneysȱduringȱtheȱtwoȬ
No.ȱ09Ȭ1384                                                                            Pageȱ4

dayȱrecessȱbeforeȱheȱtestifiedȱparallelsȱtheȱdefendant’sȱactionsȱinȱFarr,ȱwhereȱweȱupheldȱthe
denialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱdefendant’sȱ“obstinateȱbehavior”ȱandȱconsistent
refusalȱtoȱassistȱinȱtheȱpreparationȱofȱhisȱdefense.ȱȱSeeȱ297ȱF.3dȱatȱ656.ȱȱUnlikeȱinȱHeron,
whereȱcircumstancesȱoutsideȱtheȱdefendant’sȱcontrolȱcreatedȱaȱshortageȱofȱtimeȱtoȱprepare,
Cookȱwasȱatȱfaultȱforȱdecidingȱthatȱgoingȱtoȱworkȱwasȱmoreȱimportantȱthanȱkeepingȱhis
appointmentsȱwithȱcounselȱduringȱtheȱtwoȱdaysȱheȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱpreparing.ȱȱSeeȱ564ȱF.3d
atȱ883.ȱȱEvenȱifȱaȱcontinuanceȱwouldȱhaveȱcausedȱonlyȱminimalȱdelayȱtoȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’s
pendingȱtrialȱschedule,ȱgivenȱtheȱamountȱofȱtimeȱthatȱhadȱelapsedȱbetweenȱtheȱindictment
andȱtheȱtrial,ȱtheȱtwoȬdayȱrecessȱduringȱwhichȱCookȱcouldȱhaveȱpreparedȱtoȱtestifyȱifȱheȱhad
optedȱtoȱmissȱaȱdayȱofȱwork,ȱandȱwhatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱperceivedȱasȱCook’sȱhistoryȱof
“machinations”ȱtoȱgameȱtheȱsystem,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱabuseȱitsȱdiscretionȱin
refusingȱtoȱgrantȱaȱcontinuance.ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
           ThatȱconclusionȱisȱreinforcedȱbyȱCook’sȱfailureȱtoȱexplainȱhowȱdenyingȱtheȱrequested
continuanceȱprejudicedȱhim.ȱȱCookȱassertsȱthatȱhisȱlackȱofȱpreparationȱprejudicedȱhisȱright
toȱtestify.ȱȱCookȱdidȱtestify,ȱbutȱheȱcontends—withoutȱelaboration—thatȱwithȱmore
preparationȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱbetterȱableȱtoȱanswerȱtheȱgovernment’sȱquestionsȱonȱcrossȬ
examination,ȱandȱinȱturnȱtheȱgovernmentȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱnegativelyȱfocusȱon
hisȱtestimonyȱduringȱitsȱclosingȱargument.ȱȱInȱorderȱtoȱfindȱprejudiceȱweȱrequireȱa
defendantȱtoȱshowȱspecificallyȱwhatȱmaterialȱdifferenceȱaȱcontinuanceȱwouldȱhaveȱmade.ȱ
InȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱVincent,ȱweȱaffirmedȱtheȱdenialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱwhereȱtheȱdefendant
claimedȱthatȱheȱneededȱmoreȱtimeȱtoȱexamineȱdiscoveryȱmaterialsȱandȱprepareȱtoȱcrossȬ
examineȱtheȱgovernment’sȱwitnessesȱbutȱ“neitherȱpointedȱtoȱexculpatoryȱevidenceȱheȱwould
haveȱfoundȱinȱtheȱdiscoveryȱnorȱproposedȱadditionalȱquestionsȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱaskedȱthe
government’sȱwitnesses.”ȱȱ416ȱF.3dȱ593,ȱ599ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005).ȱȱHere,ȱsimilarly,ȱCookȱdoesȱnot
explainȱhowȱhisȱtestimonyȱwouldȱhaveȱdifferedȱandȱbenefittedȱhisȱcaseȱifȱheȱhadȱbeen
grantedȱaȱcontinuance.ȱȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱspecifyȱwhatȱanswersȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱgivenȱduringȱthe
government’sȱcrossȬexaminationȱifȱheȱhadȱadditionalȱtimeȱtoȱprepareȱorȱhowȱthoseȱanswers
wouldȱhaveȱpositivelyȱaffectedȱtheȱjury.ȱȱUnderȱVincentȱhisȱunsupportedȱassertionȱof
prejudiceȱisȱinsufficient.ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
           Accordingly,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱjudgment.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ