Opinion ID: 422249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hostage Negotiation Tape Recording

Text: 18 During the final stages of the kidnapping incident, a New Orleans police officer acting as negotiator allegedly represented to Crosby that he would not be jailed if he gave himself up and released his hostage. The exchange between Crosby and the officer was contained in a tape recording of the hostage negotiations. The government filed a motion in limine to exclude as evidence this portion of the tape recorded exchange because the statements to the officer were ambiguous and would result in undue jury sympathy for the defendant. The defense objected to the motion on the ground that its reading of Rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence establishes a mandate that a tape recording must be introduced in its entirety if it is introduced at all. 8 The trial court granted the government's motion in limine to bar introduction of this portion of the recording. 19 The government argues that the trial court did not take the position that the defense could never play the disputed portion of the tape. Rather, the government claims that the court made clear that the defense could play that portion of the tape any time it could show that the contested portion was relevant. Crosby disputes this, and insists that no such ruling was made. Our reading of the record convinces us that the government's position is correct. At the stage of the trial in which the government was questioning a police officer who was involved in the hostage negotiations and it became apparent that the tape would be played, the defense approached the bench and requested that the court rule on first of all, the ten minutes in controversy, and whether the tape has to be played in its entirety. The court replied that 20 [t]he ten minutes may not be admissible. There is no way we can know, but certainly the government is not presenting some selective kind of tape. They haven't selected portions and excluded others. I think that the tape, as we have it, as we find it, is admissible, excluding the ten minutes. I remain unconvinced about the last portion until such time as you show its relevance. You certainly may, on cross examination, play any part of the rest of the tape. 21 The defense persisted in its objection, explaining that even deleting the portion that talks about any type of bargain, the government has still selected and excerpted out a number of parts and put in other parts, and that is what they are going to play right now. 22 It is clear from this exchange that the court's reference to the ten minutes related to that portion of the tape which contained the police officer's alleged promise to Crosby that he would not be prosecuted if he gave himself up. More discussion between the attorneys and the court followed, at which point the defense conceded that if we follow that procedure, I don't really see how we can be hurt too much. It does look like a waste to everybody's time, but if we can come right behind him and play the whole thing-- The court replied You certainly can, with the exception of... Defense counsel completed the sentence by saying the part on the bargain. Yes, I understand the court's ruling on that. Before cross examining the government witness, the defense again asked for clarification as to which portions of the tape the court would allow it to play. The court explained that the defense could play whatever you want to play. When the defense asked the court whether its statement extended to the language regarding the bargain, the court replied that this portion could not, at this time, be admitted, but that I also say that if at some point--and I assume that time will come, maybe even today--if it becomes relevant, I'm going to let you play that, too, in its entirety. There is no question in our minds that the trial court conditioned its refusal to allow admission of the bargain portion of the tape on the fact that the defense had not yet shown its relevancy. 23 At the same time Fed.R.Evid. 106 encourages completeness in writings or recordings, it restricts a requirement of completeness by the qualification that the portion sought to be admitted must be relevant to the issues, and only the parts which qualify or explain the subject matter of the portion offered by the opponent need be admitted. United States v. McCorkle, 511 F.2d 482, 486 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 826, 96 S.Ct. 43, 46 L.Ed.2d 43 (1975). Of precise relevance to this case, we note that promises of immunity made in hostage situations are irrelevant to the issue of [the defendant's] guilt or innocence of the offenses charged and that their admission would [be] unnecessarily confusing and potentially prejudicial. United States v. Gorham, 523 F.2d 1088, 1098 (D.C.Cir.1975). We find similar irrelevance and potential for prejudice here. The statement of the police officer bore no legal relation to the charges against Crosby, and thus was properly excluded. Crosby failed to offer any theory under which the excluded portions could be considered relevant save his assertion that the change in the tone of Crosby's voice was important to a determination of what the situation was really like. Such a theory simply does not rise to the level of relevancy required under the federal rules. Exclusion of the final tape recorded segment was not an abuse of the court's discretion.