Opinion ID: 814677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendants’ Sixth Amendment Objections to the

Text: Video Deposition Testimony at Trial The government presented the jury with fourteen days of videotaped deposition evidence involving witnesses in China. During presentation of the evidence, it became clear that the video replay was consuming a large amount of court time, resulting in delay and juror fatigue. Accordingly, the district court, with the consent of all parties, approved an edited version of the videotapes to be shown to the jury. The edited version omitted the translation into Chinese of counsel’s questions in English, but it left unaltered the English questions, the witnesses’ responses in Chinese, and the English translations of the Chinese responses. Defendants argue that the edited version violated their Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against them.4 Because the Defendants failed to 4 Defendants also argue that their Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the videotaped deposition testimony was admitted without the government making a showing at trial that the witnesses were unavailable. As Defendants concede, however, this argument is waived UNITED STATES V . XU 29 object at the time the deposition testimony was introduced into evidence, we review for plain error. See United States v. Matus-Zayas, 655 F.3d 1092, 1101 n.7 (9th Cir. 2011). Defendants raise two main challenges to the presentation of the videotaped testimony. First, they argue that they were denied a fair trial because the replay subjected the jury to “brutally boring ‘spurts’ of video-taped deposition testimony, marked by computer difficulties, erroneous redactions, and confusing names.” Second, Defendants argue that the edited video depositions impeded the jury’s ability to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and body language while they were being asked questions in their native language. Regarding the fair trial argument, the parties do not dispute that portions of the trial were long or that juror attentiveness was an issue. Recognizing these problems, the district court took steps to help the jury by clarifying the names and roles of the parties, and by placing in the courtroom a face and name chart of all relevant persons. The district court also addressed juror attentiveness by dismissing one of the alternate jurors who appeared to be falling asleep. These actions were reasonable steps in managing a lengthy and difficult trial. See, e.g., United States v. Springfield, 829 F.2d 860, 864 (9th Cir. 1987) (no abuse of discretion where the district court took steps to ensure that missed testimony was insubstantial). Turning to Defendants’ Confrontation Clause argument, we reiterate that the major purposes of the Confrontation Clause are “(1) ensuring that witnesses will testify under because they raised it for the first time in the reply brief. See Bazuaye v.