Opinion ID: 3000859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The “Starved-Rock” Chat Transcripts

Text: During Brelsford’s and McDonough’s testimony, the government also published to the jury two exhibits, which are referred to by the parties as the “Starved Rock Chat” and the “Starved Rock Chat Excerpts.” Burt did not object to the admission of Starved Rock Chat, but did object to the admission of the excerpts. Tr. at 184, 407-12. Both pieces of evidence were based on a log of a Yahoo! chat between “BSomeSmoke” and “Starved_Rock” which was recovered off of Martin’s computer in Wisconsin. Recall that Martin testified that those names referred to Martin and Burt respectively. Burt now argues on appeal that the admission of the chat as a whole was an abuse of discretion. We disagree. Although we have not considered the question before, other circuits have concluded that properly authenticated chat 10 No. 06-3415 logs may be admitted in evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 1998). Those portions of the chat which represent Burt’s writings were properly admissible as admissions by a party opponent under FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2). Burt argues that the inclusion of Martin’s half of the conversation is inadmissible hearsay, and unduly prejudicial at any rate. The government counters that Martin’s half of the conversation is necessary to provide context to Burt’s comments, and was not hearsay because it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Turning first to the question of whether Martin’s portion of the chat constitutes hearsay, we are unable to see any way that the chat was being admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. Without delving into all the graphic details that the chat logs depict, we can summarize Martin’s contribution to the conversation as follows: he asserts that he is searching for something (presumably a digital photo) that is “not too graphic” for Burt. He tells Burt the name of the file that he had just sent, and that he “better find it . . . don’t [w]ant that floating around.” He goes on to describe somebody as “way too ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm”, “horny all the time an[d] will literally rape me in my sleep” and that “he never really had someoen [sic] do that [before].” Martin then begins a long description about how one of his victims “actually LOVES it . . . I am not talking oral here.” He then concludes that “all boys love oral” which he describes as “normal” but that penetration is “not normal.” There is no reason to believe that Martin’s statements were introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted in them. The government had no reason to prove the particular sexual activities that Martin engaged in with particular boys whose photos he might have been sharing with Burt. Nor did the government have any No. 06-3415 11 reason to prove the truth of Martin’s assertions that one of his victims rapes him in his sleep, or that “all boys love oral” sex but that penetration is not normal. Other than a conclusory statement that the government offered Martin’s words for the truth of the matter asserted, Burt’s briefs are entirely devoid of any explanation of how the government sought to establish the truth of the statements, or even which statements the government hoped to prove true through Martin’s words. In short, Martin’s portion of the chat log was not offered for the proof of any matter asserted in them, and therefore was not hearsay. Burt makes an additional argument with respect to the excerpted chat, which the government had altered to replace the screen names with real names, that another layer of hearsay was added to the exhibit making its admission an abuse of discretion. The parties have not pointed us to any direct authority on this issue, and it appears to be a question of first impression. We are persuaded that the altered chat logs fall into the category of a demonstrative exhibit, making their admission subject to analysis under FED. R. EVID. 403. We come to this conclusion by considering the altered chat logs in the context for which they were offered, and by analogizing to other more commonly accepted demonstrative exhibits. When the government introduced the excerpts, the prosecutor asked Brelsford to authenticate the excerpts. He replied that it was “a summary, a synopsis, of the chats reflected in the previous Government exhibit.” Tr. at 406. After Brelsford clarified that the excerpts were “direct quote excerpts of the overall chats,” the government asked, “have you reviewed [the excerpts] and determined that that exhibit accurately transcribes what is portrayed in Government Exhibit Starved Rock Chat?” Id. at 407. Brelsford agreed that, with the exception of two typographic errors which were corrected, “the actual context of the communication is verbatim.” Id. 12 No. 06-3415 The court admonished the jury that they were to independently evaluate whether the evidence convinced them that the screen names were actually used by Martin and Burt. The court noted that there was evidence that the screen names corresponded to those individuals, and warned the jury that “even though [the] exhibit says Martin and Burt . . . if I advise you that in fact it was Starved Rock and BSomeSmoke . . . that is what it said.” Id. at 412-13. Finally, the court clarified to the jury that “whether or not [Martin and Burt] really authored these statements is something that you will have to conclude.” Id. at 413. At that point the government led agent Brelsford through an analysis of the chat logs to clarify what Martin and Burt had written to each other. “It is today increasingly common to encounter the use of demonstrative aids throughout a trial. . . . Demonstrative aids take many forms; [including] duplicates, models, maps, sketches and diagrams, and computer-generated pedagogic aids.” KENNETH S. BROUN, MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 212 (2006). The decision to allow demonstrative aids rests in the discretion of the district judge. United States v. Salerno, 108 F.3d 730, 742 (7th Cir. 1997). We have previously upheld tapes and a tape player being brought to the jury deliberation room. United States v. Hofer, 995 F.2d 746, 748-49 (7th Cir. 1993). Likewise we have upheld a district judge’s decision to allow the jury to handle firearms that were admitted into evidence. United States v. Burrell, 963 F.2d 976 (7th Cir. 1992). In United States v. Welch, 945 F.2d 1378 (7th Cir. 1991), we held it not to be an abuse of discretion for a district judge to exclude a proffered transcript of an audio tape that included extensive editorial commentary on defense suspicions that the tape showed signs of being edited. In Salerno, we upheld the district judge’s decision to admit into evidence a scale model of a crime scene and to allow No. 06-3415 13 the model to be brought into the deliberation room. 108 F.3d at 742. We see no reason not to extend the logic of allowing models, maps, sketches, and diagrams to incorporate these particular chat excerpts as well. In this case, the excerpted chat logs were used to aid two witnesses in interpreting and explaining the raw computer chat logs, which forensic examiners had recovered from Martin’s computer. Just as a sketch or model of a crime scene can be used to help a witness to recount aspects of testimony and to make that testimony more accessible and understandable for the jury, so might affixing the names of real people in place of their aliases put the computer chat comments into a more useful context for the witnesses and the jury. Burt argues now that under FED. R. EVID. 403, the chat excerpts with Martin’s and Burt’s names on them should have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative. Appellee’s Br. at 23-24. We give wide deference to the district court in its exercise of discretion to balance prejudicial and probative effects of evidence. United States v. Adames, 56 F.3d 737, 742 (7th Cir. 1995). Burt argues that there was little probative use in the admission of the chat excerpts and the potential for great prejudice. We disagree. Recall that one of the main issues in contention in this case was whether Burt created and traded naked pictures of children for legitimate reasons or for sexual gratification. It was the defense’s contention that he had legitimate commercial (non-pornographic) interests in these photos. In that context, an internet chat where Martin and Burt traded photos while making overtly sexual comments had tremendous probative value on one of the only serious points of contention between the government and the defendant. As for being prejudicial, Rule 403 speaks of “unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” 14 No. 06-3415 There is a difference between evidence that brings unfair prejudice and evidence that is damning. If this chat log were being offered in a prosecution for an unrelated crime, we might be more sympathetic to a claim that it could unfairly prejudice a jury. Being associated with the sexual exploitation of children tends to do that. But the point is that in this case Burt was being prosecuted for exactly what this chat log depicts: creating, trading, and distributing photos of children for the sexual satisfaction of himself and his online partners. The chat may well have been damning, but we do not see how it created unfair prejudice. We caution that allowing the government to insert the real names in place of the screen names is a path that a district court should be careful to tread. But the court very clearly instructed the jury about the limited extent to which that substitution of names could be considered by the jury, and we emphasize that in this particular trial nobody seriously contended that this internet chat was conducted by anybody other than Martin and Burt. We find no error in the admission of the raw chat logs or the excerpted chats.