Opinion ID: 662244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of the Tapes from Evidence

Text: 13 McCord argues that the district court erred when it ruled that a tape recording of a conversation between himself, Dorthea Tomczyk and James Harvey was inadmissible in the defense sur rebuttal case under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. 14 The district court's exclusion of evidence pursuant to Rule 403 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Kessi, 868 F.2d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir.1989). 15 Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states that, [a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 403. 16 Under Rule 403, the district court has broad discretion to determine whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed. R.B. Matthews, Inc. v. Transamerica Transport Servs., Inc., 945 F.2d 269, 272 (9th Cir.1991) (Trial judges have wide discretion to exclude evidence given their presence at the trial and because the considerations arising under Rule 403 are 'susceptible only to case-by-case determinations, requiring examination of the surrounding facts, circumstances, and issues.' ) (quoting United States v. Layton, 767 F.2d 549, 554 (9th Cir.1985)); Kinslow, 860 F.2d at 968. 17 In this case, the trial court excluded the recording after considering a transcript of the tape McCord wanted admitted and after hearing counsel's arguments concerning its purpose and the potential problems it could create. The court found that the tape had little probative value because it did not appear directly to refute the testimony of prosecution witness Tomczyk nor add anything substantial to the attack on her credibility. McCord made no showing that the tape was to be used for any other purpose than to attack Tomczyk's credibility. On the other side of the equation, the court found that introducing the tape into evidence at the end of trial would unfairly prejudice the government because the jury was likely to give the tape more weight than it deserved. 18 We hold that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in excluding the tape. See United States v. Simtob, 901 F.2d 799, 808 (9th Cir.1990) (when considering what appears to be a close question, court defers to the trial court's consideration). The trial court laid out the factors it considered, and these concerns are appropriate Rule 403 considerations.