Opinion ID: 3045222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transcript Request

Text: According to Luna, the Court abused its discretion by not completely fulfilling the jury’s request for testimony regarding the Eat’n Park.4 As Luna notes, a trial court may decline a jury’s request for written transcripts of trial testimony only upon finding that supplying the transcript will slow the trial or cause the jury to give undue weight to the requested testimony. United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1400 (3d Cir. 1994). Because the Court made neither finding, Luna argues, it was required to provide the jury with all of the transcripts that it requested. Of course, as Luna must acknowledge, the Court did not decline the jury’s request. Rather, it agreed to supply the transcripts; it provided the relevant testimony of Schenker 4 Luna is correct that we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s response to a jury request to review testimony. See United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1400 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Zarintash, 736 F.2d 66, 70 (3d Cir. 1984). 7 and Bautista; and it was about to send back the remaining relevant testimony – that of Agent Toth – when the jury announced that it had a verdict. Luna claims, however, that the Court’s decision to give the transcripts to the jury piecemeal, instead of all at once, constitutes a de facto refusal of the jury’s request. Given the Court’s demonstrated effort to provide the jury with what it asked for, we disagree.5 At the root of Luna’s argument, it seems, is an implicit argument that the jury should have considered all of the transcripts it requested before reaching its verdict. But that is not a proper basis for an appeal. As the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts noted when presented with an argument similar to the one that Luna makes here, once the jurors “retire for their deliberations, they are, functionally, in charge of the pace and manner of future proceedings. When [they] have requested that a portion of the trial transcript be provided to them, nothing prevents them on further consideration from agreeing upon and returning a verdict before receiving it.” Tavares v. United States, 914 F.Supp. 732, 734 (D. Mass. 1996); see also United States v. Sanders, 893 F.2d 122, 138 (7th Cir. 1990) (trial court “did not commit error, let alone reversible error” by responding to the jury’s request for recordings and transcripts of trial testimony by 5 Because Agent Toth essentially confirmed Bautista’s account of what transpired in McKeesport on October 17, it is difficult to understand why Luna believes that he could have benefitted from the jury’s review of Toth’s testimony. Even if the Court’s method of distributing transcripts constituted an abuse of discretion, it would not require reversal because it would not have “prejudiced [Luna’s] trial in any meaningful way.” United States v. Tolliver, 330 F.3d 607, 617 (3d Cir. 2003). 8 playing tapes first, even though the jury returned its verdict before it received the transcripts).