January 23, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
PATRICIA JANE ALBRIGHT, and JORDAN ROBERT WINTZ, Defendant.
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Counsel for Defendant Patricia Jane Albright ("Albright") has submitted a declaration under seal in support of Defendants' motion to continue this trial. The Court has considered the arguments presented by defense counsel and for the reasons set forth below, hereby denies Defendant's request for a continuance.
Without disclosing material which the Court allowed to be filed under seal, defense counsel's declaration essentially presents the same two arguments for the continuance that Defendants presented during a hearing on Thursday, January 16, 2014. Thus, the Court reiterates its decision at that hearing. First, the Court is cognizant that defense counsel was not provided with witness statements from Matthew Jay Boyle, Jesse Marshal Chisum, Stuart Church and Armando Vigil until January 14, 2014. However, the Court finds that Defendants have enough time to interview these witnesses before the trial commences on February 3, 2014. Moreover, Defendants will be able to subpoena these witnesses should Defendants require their testimony at trial. Nothing else in counsel's declaration filed under seal supports the request for a further continuance at this time. Thus, Defendants have failed to show that they will be prejudiced unless a continuance is awarded. See U.S. v. Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122, 1129-30 (9th Cir 2010).
As to Defendants' second assertion, concerning statements made by Kelly Murray, the Defense has conceded that these statements are not Brady material and thus disclosure was not untimely. The Court finds that there is sufficient time for defense counsel to interview Ms. Murray prior to the commencement of trial and, therefore, a denial of this request would not prejudice Defendants. See Kloehn, 620 F.3d at 1129-30.
In the event that Defendants can make a showing that the information obtained from the interviews of the aforementioned witnesses makes a continuance necessary, the Court will reconsider Defendants' request. However, at this time Defense has failed to show that a continuance is necessary. As such, Defendants' request for a continuance is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.