Opinion ID: 349660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of the October 2 Tape

Text: 67 To support her duress defense, appellant called two psychiatrists, Dr. Louis J. West and Dr. Robert J. Lifton. During direct examination of West, appellant's counsel invited him to describe and compare appellant's behavior and mental condition shortly after her arrest and her behavior on the witness stand approximately four months later. Apparently in an effort to corroborate West's description of her mental condition as revealed in their initial post-arrest interviews, appellant then sought permission to play a tape recording of a representative interview which occurred on October 2, 1975, shortly after her arrest. The government objected, characterizing the taped interview as cumulative and unnecessary and charging that it was being offered only for its (presumably emotional) effect. The prosecutor stated that the better course was to allow West to read pertinent passages from the transcript of the October 2 tape. Appellant retorted that the tape should be admitted both to corroborate West's testimony and to reveal the basis for the opinion of Lifton, who had not yet testified and who had relied on the tapes of West's post-arrest interviews with appellant in forming his opinion. 68 The district court sustained the government's objection. The court concluded that the tape would be just very cumulative, that appellant had already taken a considerable period of time in direct examination of Dr. West, and that West had been able to speak for himself in describing the post-arrest interviews. West had, in the court's view, very and completely and fully amplified his testimony. Appellant then withdrew the request for admission insofar as Dr. West is concerned. 69 During Lifton's testimony, appellant again requested that the October 2 tape be admitted as evidence. The government objected on the grounds that the tape would be cumulative and that to play the tape would take too much time. The district court sustained the objection. 70 The basis of the district court's ruling was Fed.R.Evid. 403, which provides in part: 71 Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed . . . by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. 72 By the choice of the term substantially outweighed, there was adopted a basic policy favoring admissibility of relevant evidence. The Rules also, however, confer broad discretion on the trial judge to exclude evidence on any of the grounds specified in Rule 403, including undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. United States v. Hendrix, 549 F.2d 1225, 1230 (9th Cir. 1977); Bunn v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 415 F.Supp. 286, 291 (W.D.Pa.1976); 2 Fed.R.Evid.News 33 (1977). Accordingly, we reverse a district court's ruling on such matters only if we are convinced that the decision constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 125, 127, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974). 73 After reviewing the facts surrounding the district court's decision to exclude the October 2 tape, we conclude that that decision did not amount to an abuse of discretion. The tape was one hour and forty-five minutes long. Appellant requested that it be played in its entirety. When the court denied that request, it did not preclude appellant from reading or playing pertinent portions, and indeed the government, in stating its objection, invited the witnesses to read particular parts of the transcript of the tape. See Bunn v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., supra, 415 F.Supp. at 291. Appellant has made no showing that this more selective and less time-consuming approach would have been inadequate for her purposes. 74 Also, West testified freely and at length about his post-arrest interviews with appellant. Lifton likewise had full opportunity to describe what he had learned by listening to the tapes of those interviews. Further, as the district court expressly noted, both men were articulate, expressive and fully capable of communicating to the jury the bases for their opinions, including the substance of the October 2 interview. In an analogous situation, the Supreme Court upheld a district court's decision to exclude certain material as cumulative when the same material was treated in the testimony of the defendant's expert witnesses. Hamling v. United States, supra, 418 U.S. at 125-27, 94 S.Ct. 2887. Although reaffirming that a defendant is entitled to an opportunity to adduce relevant, competent evidence bearing on the issues to be tried, id. at 125, 94 S.Ct. at 2911-12, the Court found no abuse of discretion in light of the principle that the District Court retains considerable latitude even with admittedly relevant evidence in rejecting that which is cumulative . . . . Id. at 127, 94 S.Ct. at 2912 (emphasis added). We likewise conclude that the district court in this case acted within the bounds of its broad discretion when it excluded the October 2 tape. 14