Opinion ID: 173281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Transcript of Prior Testimony

Text: At trial, the government introduced Mr. Washington's testimony from his state court probation violation hearing in which he stated that he had handled the two firearms. The court admitted the transcript of the testimony as an exhibit, and the court allowed the exhibit to go to the jury during their deliberations over Mr. Washington's objection. Mr. Washington contends that allowing the transcript to go to the jury was error and resulted in undue emphasis on the prior testimony. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to decide what exhibits are permitted in the jury room and this court will not overturn the trial court's exercise of discretion absent a clear showing of abuse and resulting prejudice. United States v. Fields, 516 F.3d 923, 950 (10th Cir.2008) (quotations and alterations omitted). Mr. Washington cites one Ninth Circuit opinion in support of his position, but that case is distinguishable. In United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403 (9th Cir.1994), the district court submitted to the jury during their deliberation the entire transcript of a key prosecution witness's trial testimony. Id. at 1405. The Ninth Circuit explained that because allowing the rehearing of trial testimony may have the tendency to repeatedly replay crucial moments in the trial and therefore place undue emphasis on them, it is preferable to rehear testimony in open court rather than submit a partial trial transcript to the jury during deliberation. Id. at 1408. Furthermore, the Hernandez court was concerned that since the jury requested that particular transcript, there was an increased likelihood that its final decision turned on [the requested] testimony. Id. at 1409. In Mr. Washington's case, however, the court did not give to the jury a copy of a particular witness's trial testimony. Rather, the transcript had been admitted into evidence as an exhibit in the trial, and the district court sent it and all exhibits to the jury. Thus, the risk of undue emphasis identified in Hernandez simply is not present in this case. Moreover, Mr. Washington has not shown, as he must under our case law, that the submission of the exhibit to the jury was prejudicial. He argues that the transcript was particularly harmful in this case where the only real incriminating evidence was the statement Mr. Washington made in the transcripts provided to the jury. We do not agree. Officer Henning testified that Mr. Washington told him he had handled the firearms, another passenger testified she heard Mr. Washington instruct a fellow passenger to hide the gun, and one of the guns was found beneath the seat in front of Mr. Washington where he could easily have reached it. Thus, even without the transcript the jury had sufficient evidence to find that Mr. Washington at the very least constructively possessed the firearms. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in allowing the transcript to go to the jury room during deliberation.