Opinion ID: 1433877
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission into Evidence of Video Recordings of the Police Pursuit

Text: Defendant Guthrie also claims that the district court erred when it permitted the introduction of video recordings of the police pursuit. Guthrie argues that the recordings should not have been admitted because they were unduly prejudicial. Further, the Defendant claims that the introduction of the video recordings violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process and a fair trial, as well as the presumption of innocence. This Court reviews evidentiary rulings by the district court for abuse of discretion. Moon, 513 F.3d at 544. Here, Guthrie argues that the video was overly dramatic and identified Guthrie as a dangerous criminal to the jury because it showed the Defendant being pursued by numerous police officers with their lights and sirens blazing. But the Defendant again mischaracterizes the evidence. Contrary to the Defendant's argument, the single video recording shown at trial (without audio) did not depict essentially an arrest in progress. [4] The video depicted a crime in progressthe carjacking for which the Defendant was on trial. Therefore, this evidence did not violate the presumption of innocence, it merely contributed to a finding of guilt. The district court, having viewed the video and heard the parties' arguments, concluded that the video even if it is slightly cumulative ... is illustrative and makes [the event] clear actually, clearer to the jury. In so deciding, the district court did not abuse its very broad discretion in determining if the prejudicial danger of the evidence outweighed the probative value. See United States v. Vance, 871 F.2d 572, 576 (6th Cir. 1989).