Opinion ID: 187186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Binder Tabs

Text: At trial, the Government played recordings of numerous phone calls between Farrell and others. To assist the jury in following those recordings, the Government provided tabbed binders of transcripts of the recordings. The Government contended ten of those recorded conversations were between Farrell and drug sources in New York, which in turn showed he had a leadership role in the conspiracy. Although the transcripts of those ten conversations were labeled as being between Farrell and an Unknown Male, the Government placed seven of them behind a tab labeled Farrell & N.Y. Source #1 and the other three behind a tab labeled Farrell & N.Y. Source # 2. Farrell disputed the Government's contention that he was speaking with drug sources in those conversations; the participants had not identified themselves in the recordings, and no witness at trial identified the people with whom Farrell was speaking. The jury nonetheless agreed with the Government, which resulted in the enhancement of Farrell's sentences by virtue of his leadership role in the conspiracy. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Farrell contends the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, should have refused to let the Government use the tabs because their usefulness was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. A more neutral label, such as `Farrell & Unknown Male,' he argues, would have just as effectively assisted the jury in turning to the appropriate section within the binder. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion. The principal risk of indiscriminately permitting the use of transcripts by jurors is that ... the jurors may ... transform the transcript into independent evidence of the recorded statements. United States v. Holton, 116 F.3d 1536, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1997). A district court, however, has discretion to permit the use of a transcript for the limited purpose of being used as a jury aid [to] help prevent jury confusion and wasted time as a tape is being played, provided the court uses procedures ... to ensure that the jury does not rely on one party's version of the transcript instead of the tape recording. Id. at 1541-43 (quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Slade, 627 F.2d 293, 302-04 (D.C.Cir.1980). In Holton, we prescribed certain precautionary procedures, including instructing the jurors the tape recording constitutes evidence of the recorded conversations and the transcript is an interpretation of the tape, they should disregard anything in the transcript that they do not hear on the recording itself, and if only one party submits a transcript, then the jury must be informed that the transcript is only one party's version. 116 F.3d at 1542-43. Depending upon the circumstances, we pointed out, additional procedures may be necessary. See id. at 1543. It is undisputed that the district court gave the requisite Holton instructions. Farrell claims the instructions were nonetheless inadequate because they addressed only the transcripts. The tabs, Farrell says, were not part of the transcript, but were extraneous to the transcript. In order to agree with Farrell, we would have to conclude the district court was required to find that, in the absence of an instruction specifically addressing the tabs, the jury would believe it could consider the tabs as evidence. In light of the instructions the district court gave, we conclude the district court need not have attributed such a peculiar belief to the jury. First, the tabs were obviously part of the Government's presentation and organization of the transcripts. More important, the clear import of the district court's instructions was that only the tapes were to be considered as evidence of the recorded conversations. When the binders were first presented to the jury, the court explained: The evidence in this case is what you hear on the tape recordings, not what is printed on these transcript pages. These transcript pages have been prepared and provided to you solely for whatever assistance they may be to you in identifying the speaker[s] who are speaking or the words that are spoken. Similarly, after the close of the evidence, the district court instructed the jury: Transcripts of these tape recorded conversations have been shown to you solely for your convenience ... in identifying the speakers as the[] recordings were being played.... What you hear on the tape[s] themselves is evidence in the case. Although it might have been prudent for the district court to expand the Holton instructions expressly to reach the binders and tabs, we will not require district courts to presume the jury lacks common sense. We therefore reject Farrell's challenge to the use of the binder tabs.