Opinion ID: 170350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: ghillie suit in the jury room

Text: The ghillie suit Fields used to conceal himself when stalking his victims was admitted into evidence and displayed briefly during trial. Over defense objection, the district court also allowed the suit in the jury room during deliberations. Fields does not challenge the admission of the suit, but does argue that it was improper to send it into the jury room. We discern no error. While neither party has referred us to any cases similar in specifics, the broad parameters of our review are well-settled. [I]t is within the discretion of the trial judge to decide what exhibits are permitted in the jury room and [t]his court will not overturn the trial court's exercise of discretion absent a clear showing of abuse and resulting prejudice. United States v. Hines, 696 F.2d 722, 734 (10th Cir.1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the sending of tangible exhibits to the jury room is today so well established as to be practically irreversible. 2 McCormick on Evidence § 220 (6th ed.2006). Fields cites the limited display of the ghillie suit permitted during trial and the district court's initial reluctance to allow it in the jury room as indications of the prejudice involved, and he insists that the disturbing nature of the suit likely prompted an adverse irrational emotional response from the jury. In response, the government argues that the appearance of the suit is probative in the context of this case. We agree with the government. The suit's camouflaging effect supported the substantial-planning aggravator, while its disturbing appearance supported the mental-anguish aggravator with respect to the murder of Shirley Chick, who was chased down by the ghillie-suited Fields. Fields also argues that it was unnecessary to allow the suit in the jury room when a photograph would have sufficed. Whether a photograph would have been an adequate substitute is doubtful, especially in relation to the mental-anguish issue. In any event, as the government notes, the defense never asked the district court to consider this compromise, so it is a particularly inappropriate basis for saying the court abused its discretion in its handling of the matter. The district court thoughtfully exercised its informed judgment in allowing the jury to examine firsthand an admitted exhibit of substantial significance to at least two disputed aggravating circumstances during its deliberations. This was not an abuse of discretion.