Opinion ID: 2995141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Translated

Text: Tape-Recorded Conversations The government recorded several conversations between Estrada, his brother, and Varela. All of these conversations took place in Spanish. Prior to trial, the government prepared transcripts of English translations of these tapes. However, at trial, the government did not play any of the tapes. Estrada argues that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the introduction of the English translations as substantive evidence. Estrada concedes that the jury was properly instructed that [w]hether a transcript is an accurate translation, in whole or in part, is for you to decide. Estrada nonetheless advances that this instruction was rendered meaningless because the tapes were not played. During the trial, Estrada believes the crucial issue was his intent to purchase cocaine from Varela. Accordingly, it is Estrada’s contention that the tapes became the most critical item of evidence to show his lack of intent. The jury heard only Varela’s version of what was on the tapes because Estrada did not testify. Estrada claims that if the government had been required to play the tapes, then the jury would have had the opportunity to evaluate whether Varela’s version of what transpired was credible. According to Estrada, allowing the tapes to be played would have given the jurors an opportunity to make judgments about the transcripts. From Estrada’s perspective, even jurors with no knowledge of the Spanish language would have been able to judge the speaker’s particular tone and inflection, such as whether the speaker was joking or serious and sincere or deceitful. Estrada therefore asserts that the tapes should have been played for the jury. The district court’s refusal to allow the Spanish tapes to be played was not an abuse of discretion. Although Estrada argued that the transcript is merely an impression or an aid to the tape itself, the district court responded, It’s more than an aid in this case because it’s a translation from another language. To which Estrada countered by remarking that I know that, but the tape has to be in evidence for it to be an aid to the translation, because, clearly, the jury has to have the right to go back to the original evidence. The district court dismissed this point on the practical grounds that [w]ell, they can’t. It’s in Spanish. From this exchange, it becomes apparent that the district court saw no value in allowing a presumably English- speaking jury to hear tapes that were recorded in Spanish. It is difficult to second-guess such a decision. Understandably, the district court may have doubted whether a jury not proficient in Spanish would be able to properly comprehend from the tapes an individual’s tone or inflection. See United States v. Grajales-Montoya, 117 F.3d 356, 367 (8th Cir. 1997) ([T]he trial court denied the request [to admit certain tape-recorded conversations in Spanish], citing the unlikelihood that a listener who was not proficient in Spanish (such as a jury member) would be able to discern relevant inflections and idiosyncrasies (the trial court’s word) without knowing the language being spoken. Mr. Montoya has suggested no reliable means of enabling people who do not speak Spanish to interpret inflections and tone, and we cannot think of any, either.). We find therefore that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not admit and play the Spanish tapes before the jury.