Opinion ID: 197384
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Use of the Government's Transcripts

Text: 45 Defendants also claim that transcripts provided by the government and used by the jury should not have been permitted. The government provided transcripts of the taped conversations to the jury so that when the tape was played, the jury could follow along on the transcripts. The transcripts included quotation marks around certain words that the government claimed were code words used to conceal the illegal nature of the conversations. For example, quotation marks were placed around words such as ticket, which the government claimed referred to money, and accident, which allegedly referred to arrest. Defendants' objection to these transcripts was overruled. 46 This circuit allows the use of transcripts as a jury aid to tape recording playback. See United States v. Carbone, 798 F.2d 21, 26 (1st Cir.1986). Where transcripts are used, the judge should, as was done here, make clear [to the jury] that the tapes, not the transcript, constitute evidence in the case. United States v. Richman, 600 F.2d 286, 295 (1st Cir.1979). Furthermore, we have stated that: 47 Even if transcripts are not admitted in evidence, in the sense of being marked as exhibits, they are read and relied on by the jury to follow the playback. They should, therefore, be as accurate as possible. 48 Carbone, 798 F.2d at 27. 49 The quotation marks used in the transcripts submitted to the jury in this case reflect the government's theory of the case. The government does not claim that there is any audible emphasis or other vocal inflection placed on the marked words that is discernible when listening to the tape and failed, both at trial and on appeal, to offer any legitimate explanation for the quotation marks. We hold that the trial court committed erred when it allowed the use of transcripts that contained quotation marks around certain words. It is not enough that the court instructed the jury that only the tapes, and not the transcripts, were evidence. Nor is it enough for the government to subsequently present evidence that the words were code words. The government should not be allowed to bolster its argument by customizing the transcript to reflect its own theory of the case. 50
51 The next claim advanced by appellants is that the court erred when it allowed FBI agents to interpret the recorded conversations. Appellants' briefs fail to offer detailed descriptions of the incidents to which they object, although Gonzalez-Maldonado's brief cites to seventeen incidents that are generally alleged to represent occasions on which the agents' interpretations went beyond interpretation of code words. Although appellants objected on certain occasions, they failed to object on many of the instances cited in Gonzalez-Maldonado's brief. 52 Although expert testimony is permitted in order to assist the jury in understanding code-like conversations in tape recordings, interpretations of clear conversations are not admissible. See United States v. Montas, 41 F.3d 775, 783-84 (1st Cir.1994); United States v. Lamattina, 889 F.2d 1191, 1194 (1st Cir.1989). 53 Expert testimony on a subject that is well within the bounds of a jury's ordinary experience generally has little probative value. On the other hand, the risk of unfair prejudice is real. By appearing to put the expert's stamp of approval on the government's theory, such testimony might unduly influence the jury's own assessment of the inference that is being urged. 54 Montas, 41 F.3d at 784. 55 We are conscious of the fact that the interpretation of alleged code-words used by the defendants in a complex case such as this may require the expert to make statements about the context in which those words are being used. Nevertheless, we find that in some of the instances cited by appellants, the court erred by allowing FBI agents to comment on clear statements contained on the tapes. Because we are reversing on other grounds, we need not review each alleged transgression. Instead, we offer an example, in the hope that such errors can be avoided if there is another trial. 56 At one point Agent Plichta observed, in reference to one of the recordings, that the participants in a conversation appeared relieved when they--when they--when they discussed the fact that apparently they'd been able to make the delivery of money and nothing happened. They were both relieved and I believe one of them even chuckles a bit about that. Tr. 5 at 848. That the speakers on the tape were, or were not, relieved is for the jury to determine, and the testimony of the agent does not assist them in this effort.