Opinion ID: 200736
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Submitting English Transcripts to the Jury

Text: 19 When an audio recording is in English, the common practice is to play the recording, make a transcript available, mark the transcript as an exhibit, and use it as an aid. Our court, and many others, have approved such use of transcripts as aids to the jury, provided the court makes clear to the jury that the tape rather than the transcript constitutes the best evidence. United States v. Ademaj, 170 F.3d 58, 65 (1st Cir.1999). In ordinary circumstances, the district court does not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to use the transcripts during deliberations. Rengifo, 789 F.2d at 980. 20 Providing an English-language transcript of wiretap evidence is more than merely useful when the recorded language is not English; for Jones Act purposes, it is necessary. The language of the federal courts is English. Participants, including judges, jurors, and counsel, are entitled to understand the proceedings in English. 3 Even apart from the mandates of the Jones Act, in Puerto Rico, where Spanish is the primary language of most of the population, there are nevertheless jurors, parties, and counsel whose primary language is English. 21 Here, the submission of English transcripts was required, assuming the transcripts were translated and transcribed accurately (an issue discussed infra ). Unlike in Rivera-Rosario, where the English translation was ... cast aside and the jurors used Spanish transcripts instead, 300 F.3d at 5, the English transcripts here were made available to the jurors and used while the tapes were playing. Furthermore, in this case, counsel made no objection below to the provision of the English transcripts to the jury. 22