Whether a district court abuses its discretion by continuing a case after the Government's late disclosure of an expert witness, and whether possession of child pornography can be established by inaccessible computer images

Petitioner was charged in a four -count indictment with various offenses related to child pornography. He exercised his Sixth Amendment right to trial. Prior to trial, the Government failed to disclose information regarding a second expert witness in a timely fashion. Rather than exclude that witness’ testimony and allow Petitioner to proceed to a trial he was ready for, the district court continued proceedings. At trial, with the Government’s case strengthened by its late disclosed evidence, Petitioner was acquitted on two counts and convicted on two others, including possession of child pornography on a particular date when the evidence showed no active files on Petitioner’s computer that he could access. This Petition presents two issues: I. Whether a district court abuses its discretion by continuing a case following the Government’s late disclosure of an expert witness whose testimony substantially strengthened its case, rather than granting Petitioner’s motion to exclude that witness’ testimony and proceed to trial as scheduled . II. Whether a person knowingly possesses child pornography , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A , on the date charged in the indictment based on images on his computer that were not accessible to the average computer user. 2 II. T ABLE OF CONTENTS I. QUESTION S PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . 1 II.