13
revealed no evidence to suggest laceration, contusion, or
abrasion. We are not convinced that petitioner could not
assemble his records because of the assaults.
Petitioner also contends that we should have granted his
second motion for continuance because he hired an accountant 2
weeks before the Reno session to assist him in preparing for
trial. Employment of an attorney shortly before trial ordinarily
is not grounds for a continuance, Rule 134; see Dorsch v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-384, affd. 4 F.3d 996 (7th Cir.
1993); likewise, belated hiring of an accountant ordinarily is
not grounds for a continuance, see Harris v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-638.
Petitioner objects to the fact that we held the trial in
Reno. This argument surprises us because petitioner joined in
the motion to continue this case and change the place of trial to
Reno.
It is within our discretion to consider the prejudice to all
parties to a case and to the Court when ruling on a motion to
continue a trial. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983)
(trial court granted broad discretion on matters of continuance);
Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964); Brooks v.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011