Opinion
Case No. 4:01 CR 207
March 6, 2002
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DELAY THE PLAYING OF THE WILLIAMS VIDEO DEPOSITION
Before the Court is Defendant Traficant's motion to delay the playing of the video deposition of Thomas Williams. (Docket # 217).
Pursuant to the Court's 15 February 2002 order (Docket # 200), Thomas Williams was deposed in Cape Canaveral, Florida on 28 February 2002. Defendant Traficant participated in the deposition and took advantage of his opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Williams. The deposition was videotaped for use at trial.
Defendant Traficant seeks to delay the playing of the video deposition at trial until he receives the complete personnel file of Mr. Williams from the Ohio Department of Transportation pursuant to a subpoena. Defendant Traficant estimates that the delay would last approximately two weeks.
Thomas Williams is referred to by name in count one of the original indictment of 4 May 2001 (Docket # 1) and in count one of the 26 October 2001 superceding indictment (Docket # 68). Defendant Traficant, therefore, has known that Mr. Williams could be called by the government as a witness for ten months. During that lengthy period, Defendant Traficant could have utilized the subpoena power of the Court to obtain whatever sections of the personnel files may be lawfully released. However, Defendant Traficant waited until 25 February 2002, in the third week of trial, to subpoena these records.
In spite of repeated requests by this Court, the defendant failed to make available to the Court and to the government copies of the documents he already has received from Chief Legal Counsel of the Ohio Department of Transportation until the morning of 6 March 2002, the day on which the government proposes to play the video deposition. The documents Defendant Traficant has received number approximately sixty-seven pages.
Under these circumstances, this Court will not delay the government's presentation of the video deposition of Thomas Williams. The defendant's motion to delay the playing of the video deposition is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.