FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25
Go to Volume 4 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 25 Table of Contents

25.9 Electronic Recordings

    25.9.2 Tape Recording: When Transcripts Used

    25.9.2.1 Transcript Of Recording Is Not Evidence: Jury To Rely Solely On Recording / Jury To Be Guided Solely By The  Tape        
    25.9.2.2 Transcript Is Not Evidence: Instruction Should Be Repeated Whenever Recording Is Played
    25.9.2.3 Jury To Determine Whether Transcript Is Correct
    25.9.2.4 Propriety Of Two Separate Transcripts Containing Defendant’s And Prosecution’s Version
    25.9.2.5 Admission Of Transcript Rather Than Recording
    25.9.2.6 Transcript Should Not Go Into Juryroom Absent Stipulation
    25.9.2.7 Transcript Must Be Ignored If Jury Cannot Understand Recording
    25.9.2.8 Transcript Prepared By Officer Who Was Not Present At The Taped Conversation
    25.9.2.9 Playing Of Recordings In Juryroom Must Be Done In Presence Of Bailiff Or Other Court Representative
    25.9.2.10 Jury Request For Replaying Of Recording During Deliberations

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

    25.9.2.1    Transcript Of Recording Is Not Evidence: Jury To Rely Solely On Recording

RATIONALE: When a tape is admitted into evidence, normally any transcript of the tape is not itself evidence absent stipulation of the parties. Therefore, when the parties disagree as to the meaning of a portion of the tape, it would be improper for the jury to rely on the transcript to determine the meaning of the unclear passage. In this situation, it may be appropriate to instruct the jury that the transcript is only for the purpose of assisting the jury in listening to the tape and identifying the parties and is not evidence.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Absent stipulation by the parties (see FORECITE National™ 25.2.3 [Jury Not To Discuss Exhibits Prior To Deliberation]), a transcript of a tape recording is normally not evidence. (See e.g., 8TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 2.06 [Transcript Of Tape-Recorded Evidence] (2000); see also 9TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 2.7 [Transcript Of Recording In English] (2000); U.S. v. Berry (7th Cir. 1996) 92 F3d 597, 600 [conviction reversed where disputed transcript of tape recording was inadvertently given to jury during deliberations].)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 7.1; 7.3].

USE NOTE: Such an instruction should be given before the tapes are played and repeated as part of the final instructions. (See e.g., Springer v. U.S. (DC App. 1978) 388 A2d 846, 853-54.)

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

    As you have [also] heard, there is a typewritten transcript of the tape recording [I just mentioned] [you are about to hear]. That transcript also undertakes to identify the speakers engaged in the conversation.

    You are permitted to have the transcript for the limited purpose of helping you follow the conversation as you listen to the tape recording, and also to help you keep track of the speakers. The transcript, however, is not evidence. The tape recording itself is the primary evidence of its own contents.

    [You are specifically instructed that whether the transcript correctly or incorrectly reflects the conversation or the identity of the speakers is entirely for you to decide based upon what you have heard here about the preparation of the transcript, and upon your own examination of the transcript in relation to what you hear on the tape recording. If you decide that the transcript is in any respect incorrect or unreliable, you should disregard it to that extent.]*

    Differences in meaning between what you hear in the recording and read in the transcript may be caused by such things as the inflection in a speaker's voice. You should, therefore, rely on what you hear rather than what you read when there is a difference.

* This language should be included if the accuracy of the transcript is an issue.

[8TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 2.06 [Transcript Of Tape-Recorded Conversation] (2000).]  

    You are about to listen to a tape recording that has been received in evidence. Please listen to it very carefully. Each of you has been given a transcript of the recording to help you identify speakers and as a guide to help you listen to the tape. However, bear in mind that the tape recording is the evidence, not the transcript. If you hear something different from what appears in the transcript, what you heard is controlling. After the tape has been played, the transcript will be taken from you.

[9TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 2.7 [Transcript Of Recording In English] (2000).]

    Ladies and gentlemen, the tape recording as you have heard of the conversation identified by this witness, I have received it into evidence and it will be played for you in a few moments. Transcripts of that tape are going to be furnished to you for your guidance in listening to the tapes and you will be able to clarify portions of the tapes which may be difficult to hear and to identify the speakers you hear on the tapes.

    The tapes, however, what you hear, are the evidence in the case and the transcripts are not evidence. If you perceive any variation between what you hear on the tapes and the transcript, then you will be guided solely by what you hear and not by the transcripts.

    If you cannot determine from the tapes or tape that particular words were spoken, you must disregard the transcripts insofar as those words are concerned. In other words, what you hear is the evidence and not what you see on the transcript. Those are just an aid or a guide.

    I will instruct you now after the transcript is passed out to you that you are not to read the transcript or look at the transcript until after the tape starts. Then you can follow along while the tape plays on the transcript.

[U.S. v. Singleton (7th Cir. 1997) 125 F3d 1097, 1105.]

    Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, before we commence playing of the tape, let me advise you that the tape recordings are received into evidence. The transcripts that you have are being furnished for your guidance. As you listen to the tapes in clarifying portions of the tapes which may be difficult to hear, or to identify speakers. The tapes, however, are evidence in the case and the transcripts are not evidence. If you perceive any variation, you will be guided solely by the tapes and not the transcripts. Of course, if you don't want to use the transcripts, you are not required to do that either. If you cannot determine from the tape that particular words are spoken, you must disregard the transcripts insofar as those words are concerned. Now, that applies to all tapes in this case and all transcripts used in this case.

[United States v. Robinson (6th Cir. 1983) 707 F2d 872, 878.]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

RATIONALE: Unless the cautionary instruction is repeated, there is a danger the jury will rely on the transcript rather than the tape.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: U.S. v. Singleton (7th Cir. 1997) 125 F3d 1097, 1105.

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 7.3].

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

RATIONALE: Without an explanatory instruction the jurors may improperly rely on the transcript.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: See U.S. v. Bentley (8th Cir. 1983) 706 F2d 1498, 1507; see also U.S. v. McMillan (8th Cir. 1974) 508 F2d 101, 105; 8TH CIRCUIT MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 2.06 [Transcript Of Tape-Recorded Evidence] (2000).

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 5.8; 7.3].

PRACTICE NOTE: The transcript, absent stipulation of the parties, should not go into the juryroom. (See U.S. v. Kirk (8th Cir. 1976) 534 F2d 1262, 1276.)

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

    The recordings are the evidence, and the transcripts were provided to you only as a guide to help you follow as you listen to the recordings. The transcripts are not evidence of what was actually said or who said it. It is up to you to decide whether the transcripts correctly reflect what was said and who said it. If you noticed any difference between what you heard on the recordings and what you read in the transcripts, you must rely on what you heard, not what you read.

[7TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 3.17 [Recordings/Transcripts Of Recordings] ¶ 3 (1999).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

RATIONALE: When each side presents a transcript with its version of the tape it is especially important to instruct the jury that the transcript is not evidence.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: When the parties disagree as to an unclear portion of a recording, one option is to allow each party to submit a transcript with its version. "The ideal procedure for testing accuracy of transcript of tape recording is to have prosecution and defense attorney stipulate to the transcript, but when they cannot agree as to what is on tape, the second best alternative is for trial court to make pretrial determination of accuracy by reading the transcript against the tapes; a third alternative is to present jury with two transcripts, containing both sides' versions, and let jury determine which is more accurate." (U.S. v. Slade (9th Cir. 1980) 627 F2d 293, 302; People v. Lester (MI 1988) 432 NW2d 433, 436-37 [court improperly allowed jury to read audiotape transcript as they listened to tape of conversation between defendant and friend, where parties did not stipulate to accuracy of transcript, where trial court made no determination of its accuracy, where preparer of transcript never verified its accuracy in court, and where two versions of transcript were prepared]; People v. Mendoza (5th Cir. 1978) 574 F2d 1373, 1378 [when trial court decides use of transcript of tape recording is proper, court's first efforts should be to devise stipulated transcript, but if parties cannot agree each side may submit its own transcript and jury is entitled to consider divergence in the two transcripts of same conversation, with recording of it, as problem of fact to be resolved in traditional manner]; U.S. v. Hilton (DC Cir. 1997) 116 F3d 1536, 1543 ["Upon an objection of one of the parties, and failing agreement between the parties on a stipulated transcript, each party should be permitted an opportunity to introduce its own transcript or the parties should create a single transcript that shows both versions at the points of disagreement"]; see also State v. Rogan (OH 1994) 640 NE2d 535, 550 [defendant should be given, in advance, copies of any transcripts the prosecution proposes to present and defendant's counsel should be allowed to present to jury at time of playing of tapes defendant's version of words being heard by jury].)  However, this procedure has been criticized. (See U.S. v. Robinson (6th Cir. 1983) 707 F2d 872, 876; see also People v. Lester (MI 1988) 432 NW2d 433, 436 [submission of two versions of transcript of tape is prejudicial when tape is significantly inaudible]; 6TH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 7.07 [Testimony Of A Witness Under Grant Of Immunity Or Reduced Criminal Liability], commentary (1991) [the better approach is for the court to make an independent determination of accuracy and to delete the unreliable portion of the transcript].)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 7.1; 7.3].

CAVEAT: Unclear portions should only be deleted if, as a matter of law, they are unintelligible. If it is a factual issue as to which version is correct, this should be a matter for the jury to decide.

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

    In this case there are two transcripts because there is a difference of opinion as to what is said on the tape. You may disregard any portion of either or both transcript if you believe they reflect something different from what you hear on the tape. It is what you hear on the tape that is evidence, not the transcripts.

[1ST CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 2.08 [Use Of Tapes And Transcripts] ¶ 2 (2002); U.S. v. Rengifo (1st Cir. 1986) 789 F2d 975, 983.]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

PRACTICE NOTE: "Under certain circumstances, including when the taped conversation is in a foreign language, a transcript (in English) may be admitted but the tape excluded. [Citation.]" (5TH CIRCUIT PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 1.42 [Cautionary Instruction During Trial-Transcript Of Tape Recorded Conversation], note (1997) .)

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

PRACTICE NOTE: The transcript, absent stipulation of the parties, should not go into the juryroom. (See U.S. v. Kirk (8th Cir. 1976) 534 F2d 1262.) If the accuracy of the transcript has been stipulated, the transcript may be admitted into evidence with limiting instruction. (See U.S. v. Crane (6th Cir. 1980) 632 F2d 663, 664.)

RESEARCH NOTES:

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

RATIONALE: The need for a transcript generally arises where portions of a tape are unclear or when the identity of the speakers cannot readily be determined by the jury. However, the tape is the evidence and the transcript is merely an aid to understanding that evidence. If portions of the tape cannot be understood by jurors, they should be instructed to disregard the transcript.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: The ideal procedure for dealing with unclear tape recordings is to have the prosecution and defense attorneys stipulate to a transcript. (See e.g., U.S. v. Bryant (2nd Cir. 1973) 480 F2d 785, 791; see also U.S. v. Onori (5th Cir. 1976) 535 F2d 938, 948; U.S. v. Slade (DC Cir. 1980) 627 F2d 293, 302.) When they cannot agree as to what is on tape, another alternative is for the trial court to make a pretrial determination of accuracy by reading the transcript against the tapes. (Springer v. U.S. (DC App. 1978) 388 A2d 846, 853-54.) In either situation the jury receives a transcript, certified as a correct version of the tape. A third alternative is to present the jury with two transcripts, containing both sides' versions, and let the jury determine which is more accurate. (U.S. v. Onori (5th Cir. 1976) 535 F2d at 948-49.) In this situation, because no one transcript is presented as "correct," the judge "need not necessarily listen to the tapes or pass on the accuracy of any transcript." (Id.)

    Whichever procedure is followed, the court should make it "clear that the tapes, not the transcript constitute evidence in the case." (U.S. v. Rengifo (1st Cir. 1986) 789 F2d 975, 980.)

    Unintelligibility of the tape may exist as to words spoken or the identity of the speakers. (See e.g., State v. Wade (NE 1998) 581 NW2d 906, 915.) Unintelligibility renders the transcript--which is not evidence -- unusable for those portions of the tape. The jury should be instructed to disregard anything in the transcript they cannot understand from the tape. (See e.g., U.S. v. Young (1st Cir. 1997) 105 F3d 1, 10.)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 5.8; 7.3].

PRACTICE NOTE: When portions of the tape are unintelligible, counsel may wish to request a second playing. (See e.g., U.S. v. Bryant (2nd Cir. 1973) 480 F2d 785, 790.) When portions of the tape are unintelligible and an alternative transcript is available, it may be appropriate to request that the court play the tape a second time with the other transcript. (See U.S. v. Young (1st Cir. 1997) 105 F3d 1.)

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

    If after careful listening, you could not hear or understand certain parts of the recordings, you must ignore the transcripts as far as those parts are concerned.

[7TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 3.17 [Recording/Transcripts Of Recordings] ¶ 3 (1999).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

RATIONALE: Where a law enforcement officer prepared the transcript of a taped conversation which the officer did not attend, a cautionary instruction may be appropriate to assure the jury understands that the transcript is not evidence.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: See State v. Wade (NE 1998) 581 NW2d 906.

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 7.3].

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

    See FORECITE National™ 276.4.1 [Replaying Of Recordings During Deliberations: Cautionary Concerns].

See Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Admissibility: Tape Recordings Of Conversations].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3a. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Tape Recordings May Be Admitted Into Evidence].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3b. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Pretrial Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3c. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Court May Permit Jurors To Have Transcripts As They Listen To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3d. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Courtroom Procedure With Regard To Tape Recordings].

See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3e. Tape Recordings Of Conversations: Jurors May Rehear Tape Recordings After They Have Begun Deliberations].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.08.

See also 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 1.42.

See also 6th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 7.17.

See also 7th Circuit Federal Jury Instructions - Criminal 3.17.

See also 8th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.06.

See also 9th Circuit Model Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.7.

See also 11th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal TI 6.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 4 - CHAPTER 25

    25.9.2.10    Jury Request For Replaying Of Recording During Deliberations

PRACTICE NOTE: A trial judge has broad discretion in responding to a jury request that certain evidence be reread. (United States v. Alfonso, 552 F2d 605 (5th Cir.1977), rehearing denied, 554 F2d 1065 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 US 857, 98 SCt 179, 54 LEd2d 129 (1977).) The same degree of discretion has been held to apply to a judge's decision to replay tape-recorded testimony. (See United States v. Sims, 719 F2d 375, 379 (11th Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Scaife, 749 F2d 338, 347 (6th Cir. 1984).)

    However, if a replay of the recording is permitted it should be conducted in open court in the presence of counsel and the defendant. (See FORECITE National™ 276.4.1 [Replaying Of Recordings During Deliberations: Cautionary Concerns].)