Opinion ID: 754003
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Tape transcripts

Text: 10 The defense introduced the tapes into evidence. Because parts of the tapes were somewhat unintelligible, the court gave the jury transcripts of the tapes, explaining that they were not in evidence: The recording itself is the evidence. But if you have to go to the--to these transcripts to help yourself, then you can do that. Whitecotton's counsel objected: [a]ctually, Your Honor, we were hoping that if there was some difficulty in identification--because we do object to the transcripts--because we don't know who made the transcript and how they were made. And the tapes we hope speak for themselves. [ER p. 67] Agent Poteet testified that he reviewed the tapes and that they accurately reflected what he heard and remembered, and that the transcripts accurately reflected what was on the tapes. They had been transcribed by a secretary in his office and corrected by Agent Poteet, listening to the tapes. [ER p. 73] Whitecotton's counsel later stated that the tapes--the testimony is actually further continued in terms of the transcripts, and though I agree I am sure they tried to make a good effort, I think the tapes speak for themselves. [ER p. 77] 11 The use of transcripts as an aid in listening to tape recordings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Armijo, 5 F.3d 1229, 1234 (9th Cir.1993). 12 We review steps taken to ensure the accuracy of the transcripts: whether the court reviewed the transcript for accuracy; whether defense counsel was allowed to highlight alleged inaccuracies and to introduce alternative versions; whether the jury was instructed that the tape, rather than the transcript, was evidence; and whether the jury was allowed to compare the transcript to the tape and hear counsel's arguments as to the meaning of the conversations. 13 Id. 14 In this case, although it does not appear from the record that the court itself reviewed the transcript for accuracy, Whitecotton's counsel did not highlight any specific inaccuracies, or introduce the defense's own transcript, although he had access to the tapes. The jury was instructed more than once that the tapes, not the transcripts, were the evidence, and was encouraged to compare the two. Whitecotton's counsel was not prevented from arguing an alternative interpretation of the taped conversations. 15 Whitecotton argues that the taped conversations could not have taken place where Agent Poteet said they did because Whitecotton and CI Maddox referred to someone as Mom. A reading of the transcripts suggests that Whitecotton and Maddox used Mom, perhaps sarcastically, to refer to Mary Jo, Whitecotton's female roomate. [ER pp. 104-05, 127] 16 It was not an abuse of discretion to allow the jury to use the transcripts.