Arthur v. Thomas et al (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 90

ORDER denying 86 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Relating to the October 18-19 Hearing. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 10/10/2012. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS D. ARTHUR,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIM THOMAS, Interim
Commissioner, Alabama Department
of Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-438-MEF
(WO – Do Not Publish)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Relating to the
October 18–19 Hearing. (Doc. # 86.) The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion is due to
be DENIED.
On October 4, 2012, this Court ordered that the limited evidentiary hearing in this case
will begin on October 18, 2012—as previously scheduled—with all testimony to be heard
on that day except for that of Defendants’ expert witness, Dr. Mark Dershwitz, who is
unavailable on October 18, 2012. This Court further ordered that, upon the conclusion of all
but Dr. Dershwitz’s testimony, the hearing be recessed until October 19, 2012, to allow Dr.
Dershwitz the opportunity to testify by videoconference. The Plaintiff now moves this Court
(1) to extend the time allotted for the limited evidentiary hearing in this case; (2) to require
Defendants to present the direct testimony of one of their key expert witnesses, Dr. Mark
Dershwitz, in writing on October 18, 2012; (3) to allocate two hours and forty-five minutes
of the three hours and fifteen minutes that Dr. Dershwitz is available to testify by live

videoconference on October 19, 2012, for Plaintiff’s cross-examination of his testimony,
leaving Defendants with thirty minutes for any redirect examination; and (4) to allow
Plaintiff’s counsel to go beyond the scope of Dr. Dershwitz’s written direct testimony during
their cross-examination. In its motion, counsel for Plaintiff raises the concern that a single
day—October 18—will not be enough time for Plaintiff and Defendants to present the
testimony of their anticipated witnesses. Plaintiff’s counsel makes these requests to avoid
a possible dispute over the time allocated to Mr. Arthur’s witnesses and to “ensure that Mr.
Arthur is provided the opportunity to present his claims fully and fairly.” (Doc. # 86, at 2.)
The Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s concern regarding the opportunity to fully present
his claims and arguments. However, the Court is confident that it is able to adequately
manage the amount of time allocated to each party and to provide Plaintiff with a fair
opportunity to be heard absent Plaintiff’s recently requested relief. The management of this
hearing and these proceedings is the job of the Court, not the parties. If the Court determines
that the amount of time reserved for this hearing is insufficient to fully accommodate the
evidentiary needs of each party, the Court may, in its discretion, allot additional time to the
hearing. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. # 86) is
DENIED.
DONE this the 10th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2