DOJ-OGR-00003999.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 246 Filed 04/23/21 Page12o0f13 The Hon. Alison J. Nathan April 22, 2021 Page 12 the defendant to consult with a contrary expert regarding the newly added count regarding a gun silencer which added a new “draconian punishment’). G. Motions Ms. Maxwell anticipates that the Court will need to resolve various discovery disputes relating to the problems identified supra. In addition, Ms. Maxwell needs additional time to supplement her previously filed motions and file additional F. R. Crim. P 12 motions relating to the second superseding indictment. After reviewing the “new” discovery, Ms. Maxwell anticipates that she will file motions in limine related to the government’s alleged FRE 404(b) evidence and the government’s proposed exhibits, FRE 702 challenges to purported expert testimony, and motions concerning jury selection and change of venue. In addition, expert disclosure may necessitate a Daubert hearing. Because Ms. Maxwell has not yet had sufficient time to review and investigate the “new” discovery and has had insufficient access to existing discovery she is unable to predict precisely what additional evidentiary motions will be required. The late-filed superseding indictment along with the late disclosure of Brady material and failure to provide the discovery to Ms. Maxwell have delayed defense trial preparation and will continue to interfere with various tasks that would normally be in process at this stage of the proceedings. Simply stated, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel cannot perform all of the necessary tasks in the time remaining before July 12, 2021. II. Requested Relief In United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231 (1985), Justice Blackmun, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Brennan, recognized the need for a continuance when a superseding indictment adds significant changes. {2 DOJ-OGR-00003999