Opinion ID: 223257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Video Recordings

Text: Next, Watson contends that the district court erred in admitting into evidence portions of videotaped interviews in which officers informed Watson that Williams had alleged that he shot at her. Watson contends that this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial and, therefore, was inadmissible pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. Watson's argument is without merit. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. United States v. Zierke, 618 F.3d 755, 759 (8th Cir.2010). In this case, Williams's statements to officers that Watson had fired a gun were highly relevant to the task of proving that Watson possess[ed]... [a] firearm or ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Moreover, [u]nder Rule 403, great deference is given to a district court's balancing of the relative value of a piece of evidence and its prejudicial effect. Zierke, 618 F.3d at 759. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the challenged evidence was relevant and more probative than prejudicial. In any event, the evidence of Watson's guilt was overwhelming. The government's evidence at trial included video recordings showing Watson making incriminating statements during a custodial interrogation about his having fired a gun and leading police officers to a closet in his residence where he pointed out the handgun at issue in this case. In light of the overwhelming evidence against Watson, we are convinced that any error in admitting the challenged portions of the videotapes would have been harmless. See United States v. Spires, 628 F.3d 1049, 1053 (8th Cir.2011).