Opinion ID: 4155972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of the Videotaped Statement

Text: We review the district court’s exclusion of Wallace’s videotaped statement for abuse of discretion. United States v. Harris–Thompson, 751 F.3d 590, 600 (8th Cir. 2014). Reversal is warranted only if the court’s erroneous exclusion affected Wallace’s substantial rights or we believe an error more than slightly influenced the verdict. Id. A court may properly exclude needlessly cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also Harris–Thompson, 751 F.3d at 602. This includes “cumulative evidence bearing solely on credibility.” United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782, 797 (8th Cir. 1980). A court also has “ample discretion to exclude prior consistent statements that are cumulative accounts of an event.” Fed. R. Evid. 801 advisory committee’s note to 2014 amendment. At trial, Wallace recounted her voluntary statement to the VA investigator. Her written statement was also admitted into evidence. The district court excluded the videotaped statement primarily because it was cumulative when offered at trial. Wallace has not distinguished the substance of the story she told on video from the one she told at trial. Instead, she argues that the video would have given the jury the opportunity to see her demeanor, body language, and mannerisms soon after the -6- incident. She contends that this would have enabled the jury to consider her credibility within an hour of the event rather than four years later at trial.4 We discern no abuse of discretion. Both admitting and excluding the video were within the district court’s range of choice. See Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 1984). The court properly concluded that the probative value of additional relevant evidence of intent and credibility was substantially outweighed by its cumulative nature. Wallace also contends that the court’s pretrial exclusion of the video on hearsay grounds—before it ruled at trial that the video was cumulative—forced her to testify and foreclosed meaningful cross-examination. But Wallace offers no convincing authority or argument that inadmissible hearsay becomes admissible when an available defendant–witness prefers not to testify. Wallace faced a strategic dilemma, not a constitutional one. If the trial court’s pretrial ruling was as controlling as Wallace suggests, then she could have refused to testify and appealed that ruling after the verdict. See Lawrey v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 751 F.3d 947, 952 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that a definitive grant of a motion in limine preserves appellate review). Instead, Wallace chose to take the stand and offer essentially the same evidence as that presented by the videotaped statement before seeking to admit the video. By doing this, Wallace risked Rule 403 exclusion based on the video’s probative value being outweighed by its cumulative nature. Moreover, even if excluding the video was error, we are not convinced that Wallace’s substantial rights or the verdict were affected. It is far from certain that seeing another version of Wallace’s account, albeit nearer to the event, would have caused the jury to discredit Atlas. 4 We deny Wallace’s motion to add the video to the record. We do, however, accept Wallace’s word about what the video would show. -7-