Court Opinion

ID: 9483756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:30:37.603912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:49.256890
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the court’s opinion which holds that the district court abused its discretion in permitting the government to renege on its agreement to produce the informant for an interview within the time specified. Huff’s identity was disclosed well in advance of trial, so Nelson and Gullickson had ample time to make whatever investigation they wanted of Huff’s background, reputation, and the like. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the government-was guilty of bad faith in failing to produce Huff for an interview in advance of trial. Nelson and Gullickson point to no specific prejudice that they suffered as a result of the late production, other than to make conclusory allegations regarding the steps they could have taken to investigate the information contained in Huff’s forthcoming testimony. Given the district court’s on-the-scene ability to assess the impact of Huff’s testimony and the ability of Nelson and Gullickson to counter it through cross-examination and otherwise, I would hold that the district court did not err in refusing to prohibit Huff’s testimony as a sanction for the government’s failure to make him available for an interview in a timely manner.
I concur in the remainder of the court’s opinion.
ORDER
March 5, 1993.
The motion for release pending issuance of the mandate has been considered by the court and is hereby denied.
Both petitions for rehearing by the panel are denied.