Rarely is a case reversed on appeal for failure of the trial judge to grant a continuance. But in United States v, Williams the Seventh Circuit reversed a conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial finding that the judge abused his discretion in denying a motion for a continuance of the trial date.

Corvet Williams and Bryan Austin were charged with two bank robberies. On the Wednesday before trial the government informed their lawyers that it had a new witness, Edward Walker. Walker claimed to be the get away driver in the second robbery and that Williams admitted to him that he participated in the first robbery,

Walker was subpoenaed on September 21, 2007. He called the US attorney and an interview was set for October 11. The trial was set for October 22, Walker was given immunity and promised that the US attorney would contact the court in a separate matter that he had in state court. On the Wednesday before the trial at a pretrial conference the US attorney told defense counsel that Walker would testify. Defense counsel immediately moved for a continuance. The Court denied the motion on the day of trial despite a significant showing that Walker’s testimony opened up the need to investigate his criminal records and also the need to interview new possible witnesses who would either impeach Walker’s testimony.

Under Seventh Circuit precedent the court should consider

1) the amount of time available for preparation;
2) the likelihood of prejudice from denial of the continuance;
3) the defendant’s role in shortening the
effective preparation time; 4) the degree of complexity
of the case; 5) the availability of discovery from
the prosecution; 6) the likelihood a continuance
would have satisfied the movant’s needs; and 7) the
inconvenience and burden to the district court and
its pending case load.

as well as any other appropriate factors in determining whether the court abused its discretion in denying a continuance. Reviewing these factors, the appellate court found that there was limited time for preparation, that the likelihood of prejudice was considerable, that the fault was on the government, that discovery was delayed, that a continuance would allow the defense to interview specific individuals and there was no evidence that a continuance would interfere with the Court’s schedule.

In response to the proposed evidence, the defense could have developed a new trial plan since all of the evidence prior to release of Walker’s testimony indicated that only two people were involved in the robbery. But with Walker’s testimony, the defense had to change their plan to prove that only two robbers were involved thus impeaching Walker. One of the two robbers may have been Walker who apparently knew about much of the planning for the robbery. As the appellate court pointed out the defense did not have sufficient time to respond to Walker’s testimony and change their gameplan. As a result the trial court’s failure to grant the motion for a continuance was an abuse of discretion and the defendants were prejudiced by the lack of time to prepare for trial, considering the new evidence.