Appeals panel hears dispute over district judgedenial of continuance in paired trooper cases

The appeals court heard arguments in two paired criminal appeals challenging a district courtruling that denied the Commonwealth a continuance in long-motion proceedings involving allegations tied to a police trooper. Karen Palumbo, appearing for the Commonwealth, told the panel the judge ababused her discretionbb by refusing a continuance after the prosecution received a 47-page expert report only days before the scheduled hearing and before the prosecution could obtain the expertCV and data.

Palumbo said the short notice prevented the Commonwealth from developing materials necessary to test the expertmethodology and asked the panel to reverse the denial. abThe judge summarily denied that stating there was no good causebut then later granted a continuance only after reconsideration,bb Palumbo said, stressing the prosecutions need to obtain methodological details before cross-examination.

Defense counsel pressed that the Commonwealth had been on notice of the long-motion issues for months and that the district court properly managed its docket. Lauren Rose, who represented Messiah Sprouse Watson and argued she had handled the case below, said the Commonwealth had been warned earlier and had arranged for the March 15 date; she said the denial fell within the judges wide discretion. Charles McGinty, representing Jose Cardoza Barbosa, emphasized that the trooper was effectively the Commonwealths only witness and that the trial judge reasonably focused on whether that witness would appear or invoke privilege.

After extended questioning about why the Commonwealth waited to seek additional discovery and whether a Daubert hearing was necessary instead of cross-examination at the scheduled hearing, the panel announced it would take the cases under submission. No decision was announced from the bench.