Opinion ID: 183244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: District Court’s Comments During Voir Dire

Text: De La Cruz Suarez contends the district court plainly erred when, during voir dire, it expressed a preference for live testimony over videotaped testimony.5 De La Cruz Suarez specifically objects to the district court’s statement that “it’s just my predilection. I’d rather you heard people instead of movies, but they can’t help it sometimes; there it is.” We will reverse a district court because of statements it made during trial only if the comments were prejudicial and “had a clear effect on the jury and amounted to the denial of a fair trial.” United States v. Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2007). Three factors this Court has identified as “weigh[ing] in favor of a finding that the comments of a trial judge were not reversible error,” are 5 De La Cruz Suarez concedes he did not object to this comment in the district court and that plain error review applies. 11 that (1) the comments were brief relative to the overall trial; (2) the comments were directed at defense counsel rather than the jury; and (3) the court advised the jury to “disregard any intimation by the Court relating to the facts of the case.” United States v. Morales, 868 F.2d 1562, 1576 (11th Cir. 1989). Here, although stating his personal preference for live testimony, the district court explicitly told the jury that videotaped testimony was “routine,” that it did not matter whether testimony was live or videotaped and that videotaped testimony should not be “h[e]ld against anybody.” The district court further explained that the jury should evaluate the witnesses credibility the same regardless of whether it was live or videotaped. When the district court’s comment is taken in context, it is clear the district court effectively disavowed any intimation that videotaped testimony was legally insufficient or in some way inferior to live testimony and invited the jury to disregard his earlier comment. The challenged comment was brief, made before trial began and was not repeated during trial.6 Although the statement was made to prospective jurors, De La Cruz Suarez has not shown that it had any effect, 6 We do not address De La Cruz Suarez’s claim that the district court compounded the prejudice by leaving the courtroom while some of the videotaped testimony was played to the jury. Because De La Cruz Suarez expressly consented to the district court’s absence, he may not now complain about it on appeal. See Silvestri, 409 F.3d at 1327. 12 much less a clear effect, on the jury. We find no plain error in the district court’s statement.