stating that the movant for a continuance to secure a missing witness “must establish (1) who the missing witness is, (2) what the witness’ testimony would be, (3) the relevance and competence of that testimony, (4) that the witness could probably be obtained if the continuance were granted, and (5) that the party seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence in trying to locate the witness”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the movant for a continuance to secure a missing witness “must establish (1) who the missing witness is, (2) what the witness’ testimony would be, (3) the relevance and competence of that testimony, (4) that the witness could probably be obtained if the continuance were granted, and (5) that the party seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence in trying to locate the witness”
- party seeking continuance to locate missing witness “must make a fivefold showing”: “(1) who the missing witness is, (2) what the witness’[s] testimony would be, (3) the relevance and competence of that testimony, (4) that the witness could probably be obtained if the continuance were granted, and (5) that the party seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence in trying to locate the witness”
- “Whether a witness’ lay opinion is helpful to the jury is a decision left to the sound discretion of the trial court”
- “A non-expert witness may express opinions when testifying, so long as they are based on the witness’ personal observation of events and are helpful to the jury in fulfilling its role as fact-finder.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MACK, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
I part company with my colleagues when they reason that the prior recorded testimony of Reginald Morris, given under oath, was inadmissible because the government, at the time of the recording, was prevented from cross-examining the witness about activities other than on the date of March 19, 1992. The issue at appellant’s trial was precisely that of her guilt or innocence of drug distribution on March 19,1992, and as counsel for appellant argues, “the probative value of the [recorded] statement [exonerating her] could not have been greater.” See Alston v. United States, 383 A.2d 307 (D.C.1978). Prejudice to the government, if any, was minimal, as well as speculative. 1
In my view, the appellant met all the requisites necessary for invocation of the recorded testimony exception to the hearsay rule. See Feaster v. United States, 631 A.2d 400, 405 (D.C.1993).
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
. Any evidence of past non-incriminatory association between the witness and the defendant might or might not have undermined the defense.