Court Opinion

ID: 9454391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:45:18.353308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:06.065808
License: Public Domain

KERNER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of my brethren. However, I do not think it is our function to speculate from the record as to what facts further discovery would have disclosed. In order to make Hayes’ defenses meaningful, I feel that he was entitled to further discovery of Agent Comue and the I.R.S. See United States v. Benford, 406 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1969) ; United States v. Moriarty, 278 F.Supp. 187 (E.D.Wis.1967) ; and Kennedy v. Rubin, 254 F.Supp. 190 (N.D.Ill.1966). On this issue I would limit our holding to saying that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion solely on the ground that Hayes’ counsel, while moving for an extension of time, never properly moved for or requested further discovery.