Opinion ID: 674597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Delivery of an Incomplete Book of Tape Translations

Text: 80 A large part of the government's evidence consisted of conversations among defendants recorded by confidential informant Tinh Ngo. Defendants were given copies of these tapes well in advance of trial. Just prior to trial, the government gave defense counsel a transcript book that purported to contain final English translations of all of the tapes. 81 In her opening statement, Minh Do's counsel addressed the matter of the tapes, telling the jury 82 you are going to hear tapes. You are going to see videotapes. You are going to see pictures of [Minh Do] walking down Canal Street, and you are going to see him at work and using the sort of talk that you might expect and your common sense will tell you that a 22-year-old Vietnamese man in his situation might use to survive in a world that is strange and foreign. 83 (Tr. 92.) During Tinh Ngo's testimony as to conversations he had had with Minh Do concerning the latter's participation in a robbery, the government played one tape on which Minh Do stated, inter alia, some of my 'Boys' thought that they could rob the gold store, but then the alarm went off. (Tape of Conversation of June 29, 1991, 12:30 p.m., at 2.) This conversation, however, was not in the book of translations given to Minh Do's counsel, and she immediately moved for a mistrial. She argued that Minh Do was prejudiced because this conversation was inconsistent with her opening statement in which she had asserted that Minh Do's recorded conversations were consistent with what one would expect to hear from an innocent person unfamiliar with America. 84 The district court concluded that, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a), the final translations of the tapes should have been turned over to the defense prior to opening statements. However, the court concluded that Minh Do had suffered no prejudice as a result of the government's delay, and it offered to allow his counsel more time to prepare for cross-examination. We see no basis for reversal. 85 Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a), the government is required to turn over to the defendant on request any relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant ... within the possession, custody, or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A). The trial court has broad discretion to fashion a remedy for the government's violation of the Rule. See United States v. Williams, 902 F.2d 675, 677 (8th Cir.1990). The district court's admission of evidence following a violation of Rule 16(a) is not an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial unless the violation caused the defendant substantial prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 548, 553 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1181 (2d Cir.1993). 86 For several reasons, we are unable to conclude that Minh Do's nonreceipt of the translation of the above conversation prior to trial resulted in prejudice to him. First, Minh Do had possession of copies of the tapes themselves prior to trial and had had a translator listen to them. Thus, he knew or should have known that this conversation was recorded. Further, to the extent that he was surprised, he could have taken advantage of the district court's offer to allow counsel more time to prepare for cross-examination. 87 Finally, there were several other taped conversations, the translations of which were indisputably in the possession of Minh Do's counsel prior to her opening statement, and those other conversations squarely contradicted her assertion that the tapes would show Minh Do only as an innocent feeling his way in a new land. For example, on one tape, Minh Do stated, inter alia, Tomorrow we are going to rob; Don't plan anymore; Tomorrow if the robbery is successful, I don't know what is next; Probably it will be satisfying when we count the money. (Tape of Conversation of May 10, 1991, 9:00 p.m., at 3-4.) On another tape, Minh Do, accompanied by fellow gang member Anh Loc, was recorded extorting money from a shop owner as follows: 88 Minh [Do]: It's been a long time since I talked to you, please give me some money. 89 Owner: Ok, later in the afternoon please Anh Loc. Since this morning I have not been able to sell. 90 Loc: Ok in the afternoon. 91 .... 92 Minh [Do]: Fuck. If he doesn't give then break his stuff. 93 (Tape of Conversation of June 29, 1991, 12:30 p.m., at 19.) Thus, Minh Do's opening statement was contradicted even by tapes whose translations he had received. 94 We conclude that there was no prejudice and that the district court's decision to admit the evidence and deny Minh Do's motion for a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. 95