Opinion ID: 2972784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of the videotaped reenactment

Text: The video reenactment, made for the purpose of demonstrating that Baldwin was physically capable of unzipping his pants while allegedly bound in his car, is a form of experimental evidence. This circuit has held that “[e]xperimental evidence is admissible so long as the evidence is relevant and probative, and experimental evidence is deemed to have probative value if the conditions of the experiment were identical with or similar to the conditions of the transaction in litigation.” Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Morton Pharm., Inc., 417 F.2d 921, 926 (6th Cir. 1969). The conditions of the experiment must be “substantially similar” to those of the event at issue, but “[a]dmissibility . . . does not depend on perfect identity between actual and experimental conditions.” Persian Galleries, Inc. v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 38 F.3d 253, 258 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Where the conditions are substantially similar, “dissimilarities affect the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). In Persian Galleries, this court considered the government’s proffer of a video reenactment of a robbery. The purpose of the video was “to demonstrate that the theft of the [stolen merchandise] could have been completed within the time interval that elapsed between the activation of the alarm system and the arrival of the first officer.” Id. In objecting to the proffer, the defendant’s primary argument was that the reenactment used tape to secure the remaining glass in the door frame, whereas the defendant claimed that the glass fragments could have otherwise fallen out and slowed down the robbery. This court upheld the admissibility of the evidence, however, “[b]ecause the videotaped experiment was substantially similar to the actual conditions at the burglary scene.” Id. The video in the present case, in contrast, is less similar to the events that it purports to reenact. Unlike the video in Persian Galleries, which was shot at the scene of the crime, the video in question was not shot in Baldwin’s car. Baldwin’s video differs from the circumstances of the alleged kidnapping in other ways as well and, unlike the taped glass in Persian Galleries, these differences were more likely to affect the result of the experiment. For example, whether the rope was knotted or unknotted would have an obvious effect on the ease with which Baldwin could move his hands when bound with the rope. Likewise, whether the front seat was bent forward or not would directly affect the amount of space that Baldwin had to move around in. But Baldwin presents one additional argument for the admission of the video—that the evidence is “‘more probative on the point for which it [was] offered than any other evidence’ [that Baldwin] could procure.” United States v. Toney, 599 F.2d 787, 790 (6th Cir. 1979) (holding that the district court committed reversible error in excluding statements corroborating the defendant’s story) (citation and quotation marks omitted). This argument, however, fails to take into account the ways that the conditions in the video could have matched more closely those of the alleged kidnapping, and therefore been more probative. First, Baldwin could presumably have used his own car, rather than selling it after the crime. Second, he could have used a knotted rope, like the one with which he was allegedly bound. A third way to make the video more probative would have been to put the front seat in the same position that it was in during the alleged kidnapping. Because Baldwin could have produced a video that more closely replicated No. 04-3199 United States v. Baldwin Page 5 the conditions that he described to Agent Baber, we conclude that the excluded video was not “more probative . . . than any other evidence [that Baldwin] could procure.” Toney, 599 F.2d at 790. In sum, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the video. We acknowledge, however, that the video is not so far removed from reality that we would have found an abuse of discretion had the district court reached the opposite result and admitted the evidence. See Tompkin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 362 F.3d 882, 897 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Broad discretion is given to district courts in determinations of admissibility . . . and those decisions will not be lightly overturned.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).