X hits on this document





26 / 115

B.  Trial continuance denied April 19, 1990

On April 19, 1990, during jury selection, defense counsel moved orally for a continuance, asserting they needed 45 to 60 days to finish the expert paint comparison work.  In an in camera hearing, counsel asserted that the prosecution expert who had previously compared the bubble shield and post paints, Stephan Schliebe, had been uncooperative as to providing his data and samples to the defense and that, once the defense had these materials, their own examination would take up to 30 days.2  The court suggested Schliebe be subpoenaed to appear the next day in order that the court could order him to produce any needed materials.  The court further indicated that it considered excessive the defense estimate of time needed to complete the expert examination and that no continuance would be granted on that basis.  After the conclusion of this confidential hearing, defense counsel stated that they intended to seek writ relief in the Court of Appeal.3  

Later that day, as voir dire was completed and the court prepared to swear in the jury, defense counsel moved to defer swearing the jury until the defense writ petition was heard.  The court denied that motion.  The court also denied a prosecution request for a three-day continuance to “get my witnesses and coordinate the evidence,” noting that “you’ve had two years to be able to get them.”4

2 The transcript of this hearing was originally filed under seal.  Both parties having received notice, and neither having objected, the transcript is hereby ordered unsealed.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 12.5(f)(2).)

3 The Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition on April 23, 1990.  This court denied review on May 7, 1990.

4 Defendant incorrectly states that this request for a three-day continuance was made by the defense.

Document info
Document views480
Page views480
Page last viewedMon Jan 16 15:12:15 UTC 2017