United States v. Ronald w.jordan

While I have serious misgivings as to several matters raised in this appeal, I limit my dissent to a single point — the propriety of the trial court’s denial of the motion for a continuance to enable defense counsel to investigate the background of the previously unidentified witnesses, Carl Milton Watkins and Bennie Lee Williams. I think the trial court’s ruling on this motion was error — constitutional error in fact. The ruling embodied such a high potential for prejudice that a new trial is required.

The majority’s treatment of this issue may be faulted on a number of grounds: not only does…