Court Opinion

ID: 9496947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:39:21.335614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:54.064136
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the result and in all of the majority opinion except Part III. B.
Part III. B decides that the grant of a continuance should be considered separately, is not a final order, and so is not subject to review in this appeal.
I agree that the grant or denial of a continuance is ordinarily not an order subject to interlocutory review, but in U.S. v. Ferebe, 332 F.3d 722 (4th Cir.2003), we decided that the government’s giving of notice in a federal death penalty case is subject to interlocutory review to ascertain whether the death penalty notice under 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a) has been given “a reasonable time before the trial or before acceptance by the court of a plea of guilty.” As the majority opinion relates, the answer to that question is determined by whether the notice “is filed an objectively reasonable time before trial.” Slip p. 374.
In the case at hand, the contention of the defendants is that the death penalty notice given 31 days before trial is objectively unreasonable. Br. p.i. To reach that conclusion, the defendants argue that the continuance granted by the court from July until February, a period of some seven months, enabled the government to give the death notice an objectively reasonable time before trial when the government had forfeited any right to give the death notice by not so doing in order that the trial could proceed on July 14, 2003 as previously scheduled. Because the granting of the continuance is necessarily relevant to the time the death notice was given, I think that question is reviewable under Ferebe. And, in my opinion, the contention of the defendants is without merit.
As noted, the case was first set for trial on March 18, 2003. Then, on the March 6, 2003 motion of Cassell, a new trial date was set, on March 12, 2003, for July 14, 2003, some four months later. All of the defendants joined in this request, and the government did not object to the continuance from March 18, 2003 until July 14, 2003.
On June 4, 2003, Breeden, and on June 6, Cassell, moved to bar the government from seeking the death penalty, which motion was joined by Carpenter on June 13, *3762003. On June 20, 2003, the government moved for a continuance of the July 14, 2003 trial date, and, on July 15, 2003, filed its notices to seek the death penalty. On July 7, 2003, the district court continued the case until February 9, 2004, and at that time, it related in that order, which relation has not been objected to then or now.
The defendants and the government then informed the court that they could not be prepared for a death penalty case before February 9, 2004. A. 141.
The district court based its decision on stated facts that there were a number of items of evidence still being analyzed at the forensic laboratory in Richmond; that a bullet taken from the body of the victim was being analyzed at the same laboratory to ascertain if the gun had been used in other crimes; that the government was in the process of gathering evidence of two robberies that had occurred immediately before the murder; and that the government expected to complete its investigation and turn over relevant discovery to the defendants in the next few weeks. The district court then concluded that a failure to grant such a continuance would deny counsel for the defendants and the attorney for the government the reasonable time necessary to effectively prepare for trial, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
The findings of the district court are contested by way of argument, but the record does not show factual inaccuracies of any consequence in the evidence considered by the district court when it made its decision to continue the trial until February. For example, the statement by the defendants’ attorneys to the district court, noted in that court’s order of July 7th, that they could not be prepared for a death penalty trial before February 9th, would alone support the conclusion of the district court that a failure to grant the continuance until February would deny the defendants’ attorneys the reasonable time to effectively prepare for trial.*
I am thus of opinion that the defendants have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in granting the continuance and would so hold.

 Indeed, the defendants’ July 7th position, that seven months were needed to prepare for trial, is entirely inconsistent with the March 13 th continuance of the trial date until July 14th, a period of some four months. The July 7th position of the attorneys, that seven months were needed to prepare for trial, is proof certain that they could not have been prepared for trial on the July 14th date and exposes the fallacy of the argument now made to support the appeal.