Opinion ID: 2684154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Playing of the Tape

Text: Both sides agree that in playing portions of nine audio and video recordings during his closing statement, the prosecutor inadvertently included an audio recording not entered into evidence. Rojas made no objection at the time, but did request a mistrial after all of the closing statements were completed. Assuming for the sake of argument that Rojas's request for a mistrial was timely, we review the denial of the motion for abuse of discretion, requiring a showing of clear prejudice. United States v. Pagán-Ferrer, 736 F.3d 573, 586 (1st Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, any incremental impact of the unadmitted tape beyond that of the admitted tapes was so minimal that no one appeared to notice as it was played that it had not been admitted. This was thus not a case in which disputed evidence kept out for its substantial prejudicial impact was played to the jury. To the contrary, even on appeal Rojas can point to nothing in the recording that was either unfairly prejudicial or uniquely inculpatory. Adding belt to suspenders, the judge also gave a curative instruction as soon as he was alerted to the issue. See United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1184 (1st Cir. 1993). -10- Rojas provides no basis for doubting that the jury disregarded the evidence as instructed.