Criminal trial will proceed despite defendants’ stay request

Although the defendants argued the court should stay the trial in order to allow them sufficient time to explore discrepancies in interviews of a witness conducted by the police, the request was denied because the defendants had 40 days before their case-in-chief, which was deemed a sufficient period of time.

Background

On June 28, Oct. 27 and Nov. 1, 2017, detectives with the Danville Police Department interviewed DaShawn Anthony, a defendant in a related trial while he was incarcerated in Caswell County, North Carolina. Written reports of the three interviews were provided by the government to the defendants on Oct. 2, 2018, and video copies of interviews two and three were provided to defendants on Aug. 2, 2018.

With respect to the video of interview one, as of Oct. 4, 2019, the government told defendants that it did not have a working copy of the video and that any such copies provided to the Danville Police Department or the government were corrupted.

On Oct. 5, 2019, the government informed defendants that it was able to recover a working copy of the video of interview one and provided copies to defendants shortly thereafter. Defendants then moved the court to enter an order granting a continuance of the beginning of the trial for seven days following the selection and swearing in of the jury.

Analysis

Defendants argue that the court should delay the start of the trial an additional  seven days because the video of interview one contains new, relevant evidence that needs to be investigated. Defendants contend that there are material differences between the statements and allegations made during interview one and interviews two and three. Defendants believe that they need the additional time to investigate the  details surrounding such statements and allegations made by Mr. Anthony.  Without  the additional time, defendants argue, they will be unable to be fully prepared for trial.

In response, the government asserts that the video of interview one does not contain any material information that has not previously been disclosed to defendants. The government further contends that defendants will suffer no prejudice because defendants have, at a minimum, 10 days between the disclosure of the video of interview one and defendants’ opening statements, and over a month between the disclosure of the video of interview one and the beginning of the defendants’ case-in-chief.

The court concludes that concludes that defendants will have sufficient time to investigate any details or information provided in the video of interview one. Although the court acknowledges that some of the statements made in interview one differ from interviews two and three, the court concludes that a minimum of 40 days is sufficient time for defendants to investigate any variations in Mr. Anthony’s statements and be prepared to present their case in chief. The court also notes that Mr. Anthony does not appear on either the government’s or defendants’ witness list for this trial and that the government will not introduce the video of interview one into evidence.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial denied.

United States v. Davis, Case No. 18-cr-00011, Oct. 11, 2019. WDVA at Danville (Urbanski). VLW 019-3-488. 4 pp.