Opinion ID: 4447778
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Video of the Tour-Bus Confrontation

Text: Over Taylor’s objection, the judge admitted the video of the tour-bus confrontation between Rainey and Taylor.1 Taylor renews his objection on appeal, arguing that the video was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See FED. R. EVID. 403 (permitting the district court to exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice”). We give special deference to the judge’s applica- 1 Though we use the singular “video,” we note for completeness that it was actually a combination of three recordings, each of which captured the tour-bus confrontation from a diﬀerent angle. Nos. 16-4153 & 18-2990 11 tion of Rule 403’s balancing test; we will reverse only if “no reasonable person could take the view adopted by the trial court.” Davies v. Benbenek, 836 F.3d 887, 889 (7th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). Taylor doesn’t come close to clearing this high bar. The video had obvious probative value on the key question before the jury: whether to credit Rainey’s testimony that Taylor sexually assaulted her. Taylor’s reaction when she confronted him is telling. He angrily ordered her to “shut up” just as she was on the brink of divulging what happened during the unauthorized private date. When she finally spilled the details of the assault, there is no denial; instead, Taylor erupted in a torrent of profanities, ordered her off the bus, and threatened to “strangle” and “choke” her. This conduct reflects consciousness of guilt. The video was also relevant as impeachment evidence. Though Taylor did not appear at trial, Rainey played parts of his recorded deposition testimony for the jury, including a passage in which he denied that Rainey confronted him about the assault on the tour bus. The video exposes this deposition testimony as false. Finally, as the judge aptly noted, the video helped the ju- ry to evaluate the parties’ body language and credibility soon after the assault: “The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s interactions after … the incident … can be probative for the jury in deciding who is telling the truth, what they say to one another, how they react, their facial expressions.” We agree with the judge’s assessment that this video evidence had substantial probative value. 12 Nos. 16-4153 & 18-2990 And the judge appropriately balanced the probative val- ue against the risk of unfair prejudice. Taylor complains that the jury saw a “scuffle” featuring pervasive foul language. But the recording captured both parties using profanity and engaging in a scuffle. Taylor also suggests that the jury might have been distracted or misled by the slang he used during the confrontation. But he does not say how his language might have been misinterpreted. Like the district judge, we see little risk that the video could have induced the jury to decide this case on an improper basis. United States v. Klebig, 600 F.3d 700, 713 (7th Cir. 2009).