Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Providing jurors with transcript

Text: During the State's case-in-chief, Assistant United States Attorney Tony Arvin read to the jury a transcript of Mr. Day's testimony given on November 9th during the federal proceedings. Simultaneously, the jurors were each provided a copy of the transcript to read. Although Defendant Thomas conceded that the reading of Mr. Day's prior testimony was permissible, he objected to the handing of the transcript to the jury. The trial court responded, this is not Mr. Day testifying; it's a bit harder for jurors, I think, to follow because it's some sort of neutral presentation of what is otherwise testimony; and so I think it will aid  in my opinion, it will aid the jury in following what is being read. Thus, the trial court overruled Defendant Thomas' objection. However, the trial court further determined that the jury was not to have a written copy with them in the jury room because that would give undue weight to a written document which is, in essence, testimony  nothing more nothing less. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling on this matter. This issue is without merit.