Opinion ID: 740213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: testimony readback

Text: We review the district court's decision to allow the readback of testimony for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Nickell, 883 F.2d 824, 829 (9th Cir.1989). The determination to allow a rereading or rehearing of testimony must be based on particular facts and circumstances of the case. Undue emphasis of particular testimony should not be permitted. United States v. Binder, 769 F.2d 595, 600 (9th Cir.1985). During deliberations, the jury requested a readback of [t]estimony about 'Chino' by Officers Sanchez & Jones & testimony by Jerry concerning the same subject. The jury's note requested Sanchez's testimony from February 21, Jones's testimony from February 22, and Jerry's testimony from February 27. The district court granted this request and arranged for the testimony to be reread in open court, with Ramirez and counsel for both sides present. The district court did not give any limiting instruction in connection with the readback. After the designated testimony was read back, Ramirez's counsel pointed out that his cross-examination of Officer Sanchez had not been read back. The district court explained that Sanchez had testified on direct examination on February 21 and on cross-examination on February 22. The jury's note requested only Sanchez's February 21 testimony. The district judge stated that the law is to respond with absolute precision to the note and not allow additional matters to go back to the jury that they did not specifically request. We have upheld the readback of testimony or the provision of the transcript to the jury only where the district court has taken substantial precautions to ensure that no testimony is unduly emphasized. See United States v. Hernandez, 27 F.3d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.1994) (finding clear error where district court failed to take sufficient precautions to avoid undue emphasis of particular testimony), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1147 (1995); United States v. Lujan, 936 F.2d 406, 411 (9th Cir.1991). In Hernandez, the jury requested the transcript of testimony by a particular witness. The district judge provided the jury with both direct and cross-examination testimony by that witness. However, the judge neither admonished the jury not to overemphasize particular evidence nor instructed the jury that the transcript was not authoritative. Hernandez, 27 F.3d at 1408-09. Similarly, the district judge here took no precaution against undue emphasis of the requested testimony. She did not remind the jury that it must weigh all the evidence. She did not caution the jurors to rely on their memories of the testimony rather than on the reread version. Moreover, providing both direct and cross-examination testimony is an important step to prevent undue emphasis. See id. at 1409; Nickell, 883 F.2d at 829. The district court had instructed the jury that the question whether or not Chino was a government agent was relevant to support or refute Ramirez's entrapment defense. The jury's note requested a readback of testimony by Sanchez, Jones, and Jerry about Chino. Officer Sanchez's cross-examination included references to Chino. The readback only of Sanchez's direct testimony may have unduly emphasized it. The district judge abused her discretion in refusing to have Sanchez's cross-examination read back and in failing to take any precautions to avoid undue emphasis of the read-back testimony.