Opinion ID: 195251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mr. Brandon explained to Mr. Gauvin

Text: and Mr. Granoff that Homeowners required a twenty-five percent down payment and while that down payment would not be required of Mr. Gauvin and Mr. Granoff, he did have the problem of the down payment with subsequent purchasers and he asked Mr. Gauvin and Mr. Granoff for their assistance in meeting that problem. Q. What, if anything did Mr. Gauvin respond? A. Mr. Gauvin, as I recall, initially, didn't quite understand what Mr. Brandon wanted and after further explanation, Mr. Gauvin responded that he might be interested under some circumstances in helping out. Q. What about Mr. Granoff? A. I believe Mr. Granoff indicated his consent also. Defendant Gauvin claims this testimony was crucial to his defense because it corrects a mischaracterization in the government's closing argument about what Marderosian said about the down payments. Defense counsel explicitly told the jury to review the testimony regarding the alleged mischaracterization. We have some doubts, given the request for a meeting concerning Pidge and Meeting Streets, that this particular request was related to the issue of the alleged mischaracterization. In any event, we find no abuse of discretion in the judge's decision that the omitted material was not what the jury was looking for. -103- Akitoye, 923 F.2d at 226. The extra burdens on the court created by rehearing testimony is relevant to judging the reasonableness of the court's refusal to read back testimony to the jury. See id. If the trial judge had searched for all the testimony related to the deal involving Pidge and Meeting Street or all the discussions of down payment arrangements for that deal, the judge would have had to spend considerably more time and effort than he had already expended. Such extra effort was not required.