Opinion ID: 71077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tape Recording of Jury Instructions

Text: The [s]ubmission of written instructions is within the sound discretion of the [district] court. United States v. Holman, 680 F.2d 1340, 1354 (11th Cir.1982). Massey contends that the district court erred in providing 10 the jury with only a tape recording of the jury instructions. Massey failed to timely object to the form of the jury instructions; therefore, we review for plain error. Specifically, Massey argues that the district court's actions require reversal 10 The jury requested twelve copies of written jury instructions on the first day of deliberations. The district court, after noting that the court reporter had not transcribed the jury charge, asked the parties if they objected to sending the tape-recorded instructions to the jury. Neither the government nor Massey objected to the submission of the tape. The court subsequently sent the jury the tape along with the message that no written instructions were available at that time. At the end of the day, Massey's counsel requested that the court also provide the jury with written instructions the following morning. The court agreed. The jury, however, reached a verdict that evening before the court reporter transcribed the instructions. The next morning, the court informed the parties that the jury had reached a verdict. At that time, Massey did not object to the jury rendering a verdict without the benefit of written instructions. because the tape recording permitted the jury to improperly focus on jury instructions relating to the RICO and mail fraud counts without considering all the instructions. We reject Massey's argument for three reasons. First, the tape recording contained the entire jury charge. Second, the district court instructed the jury to follow the instructions as a whole and not to disregard any of the instructions. Third, no evidence exists to suggest that the tape recording impaired the jury's ability to follow the district court's instructions. Thus, we conclude that Massey has failed to show that the tape recording was so cumbersome that the taped instructions seriously affected the fairness of his trial and the integrity of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we find no reversible error.