Opinion ID: 1035458
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Approaches of Other Jurisdictions

Text: Allowing or disallowing the use of demonstrative exhibits in deliberations usually is a matter of discretion.20 Rule 611(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence—the federal rule governing the mode of presenting evidence in court—is regularly cited as giving courts general discretion over the use of demonstrative exhibits during trial.21 Prior to its restyling in 2011, Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) was identical to Neb. Evid. R. 611(1), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611(1) (Reissue 2008). The 2011 amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence were meant to be stylistic only.22 Therefore, federal rule 611(a) remains substantively identical to § 27-611(1). [4] Where a Nebraska Evidence Rule is substantially similar to a corresponding federal rule of evidence, Nebraska courts will look to federal decisions interpreting the corresponding federal rule for guidance in construing the Nebraska rule.23 We thus begin by looking to the federal courts for guidance on the use of demonstrative exhibits during jury deliberations. Of the 13 circuits, 10 permit demonstrative exhibits to be used by the jury during deliberations when certain circumstances are present. As will be explained below, these circumstances vary from the use of limiting instructions or other safeguards to consent of the parties. 20 See, e.g., U.S. v. Milkiewicz, supra note 12; U.S. v. Salerno, supra note 18; United States v. Downen, supra note 18; Shane v. Warner Mfg. Corp., supra note 18; U.S. v. Hollie, No. 98-1103, 1999 WL 1021860 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 1999) (unpublished disposition listed in table of “Decisions Without Published Opinions” at 198 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 1999)). 21 See, e.g., U.S. v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012); U.S. v. Milkiewicz, supra note 12; U.S. v. Taylor, 210 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Salerno, supra note 18; U.S. v. Johnson, supra note 18; U.S. v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1988); U.S. v. Possick, 849 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Scales, supra note 18. 22 See Fed. R. Evid. 611(a), advisory committee note on 2011 amendment. 23 Breeden v. Anesthesia West, 265 Neb. 356, 656 N.W.2d 913 (2003). Nebraska Advance Sheets 374 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS The most common prerequisite for the use of demonstrative exhibits during jury deliberations is the use of safeguards against prejudice. In the 2d,24 3d,25 and 10th26 Circuits, the only requirement for sending demonstrative exhibits to the jury room is the giving of a limiting instruction. The First Circuit also requires that trial courts employ adequate safeguards against prejudice, such as jury instructions, editing to remove prejudicial content, and opportunity for the exhibit’s opponent “to expose his concerns to the jury.”27 In addition, trial courts in the First Circuit must determine that demonstrative exhibits would be useful to the jury.28 The remaining circuits that allow demonstrative exhibits to be used in jury deliberations each employ different approaches. The Fourth Circuit allows demonstrative exhibits to go to the jury during deliberations following the “proper admission of the summary chart into evidence.”29 The Fifth Circuit requires only consent of the parties.30 The 11th Circuit has the most restrictive rule regarding the use of demonstrative exhibits in jury deliberations. It has held that it is an abuse of discretion to send demonstrative exhibits to the jury for use in deliberations in all circumstances except three: (1) where the exhibit is not hearsay, (2) where extensive cross-examination is allowed, or (3) where chain of custody is a contested issue.31 In contrast to the 11th Circuit’s precise rule, the 6th,32 7th,33 and 24 See U.S. v. Casamento, supra note 14. 25 See Shane v. Warner Mfg. Corp., supra note 18. 26 See, e.g., United States v. Downen, supra note 18. 27 U.S. v. Milkiewicz, supra note 12, 470 F.3d at 400. 28 See id. 29 U.S. v. Johnson, supra note 18, 54 F.3d at 1161 n.11. 30 See, e.g., U.S. v. Harms, supra note 13; U.S. v. Taylor, supra note 21. 31 See U.S. v. Pendas-Martinez, 845 F.2d 938 (11th Cir. 1988). 32 See, e.g., United States v. Scales, supra note 18; U.S. v. Hollie, supra note 20. 33 See, e.g., U.S. v. Salerno, supra note 18; United States v. Bernard, 287 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1961). Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. PANGBORN 375 Cite as 286 Neb. 363 8th34 Circuits sometimes allow pedagogical exhibits to go to the jury during deliberations, but have no consistent rule. At one time or another, both the Seventh35 and Eighth36 Circuits have required limiting instructions. In summary, although there is no uniform approach among the circuit courts, the use of limiting instructions is the most prevalent. Indeed, in the Fourth,37 Fifth,38 and Sixth39 Circuits, limiting instructions or other safeguards must accompany demonstrative exhibits even when they are merely used or displayed in trial without being sent to the jury during deliberations.
Other States Other states do not appear to have a unified approach to the use of demonstrative exhibits in jury deliberations. Courts in Massachusetts,40 Missouri,41 Pennsylvania,42 and Wisconsin43 leave the issue solely up to a trial judge’s discretion. Several states allow demonstrative exhibits to be used during jury deliberations when appropriate safeguards are in place. Ohio requires limiting instructions.44 In Illinois, the trial judge can send a demonstrative exhibit to the jury room once he or she 34 See, e.g., U.S. v. Possick, supra note 21; United States v. Warner, supra note 18. 35 See United States v. Bernard, supra note 33. 36 See U.S. v. Possick, supra note 21. 37 See, e.g., U.S. v. Johnson, supra note 18. 38 See, e.g., U.S. v. Ollison, 555 F.3d 152 (5th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Ogba, 526 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2008); U.S. v. Taylor, supra note 21. 39 See, e.g., U.S. v. Bray, supra note 13; United States v. Scales, supra note 18. 40 See Com. v. Walter, 10 Mass. App. 255, 406 N.E.2d 1304 (1980). 41 See State v. Yowell, supra note 18. 42 See Commonwealth v. Moore, 443 Pa. 364, 279 A.2d 179 (1971). 43 See State v. Olson, 217 Wis. 2d 730, 579 N.W.2d 802 (Wis. App. 1998). 44 See In re Estate of Lucitte, supra note 14. Nebraska Advance Sheets 376 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS has determined that the exhibit is not prejudicial.45 Otherwise, ­ the majority of states have not addressed this issue.