8.30.06: People v. Eric Delgado, Denver, CO -- Beware of playing tape recordings for a jury. Criminal cases often include audio- or video-taped interviews. Many times, these recordings are not clear – either because of the quality of sound, the presence of static or interference, or even the size of the courtroom making listening difficult. I am watching a capable prosecutor try to punctuate his Closing Argument in a Sexual Assault on a Child case by playing portions of the Defendant's audio-taped statement, using his own words against him. My courtroom is a large cave – sound is often muffled and unintelligible. The prosecutor is frustrated in his playing of the tape, although he has taken great care to transfer the portions of the statement to his computer. Unfortunately, the speakers, the corruption of the sound recording, and the size of the courtroom have made it impossible for the jury to hear clearly, thus having little impact. Perhaps the prosecutor should have simply read a transcript of the Defendant's words to the jury to illustrate his point.

Contrast this with the very end of a Closing Argument in another Assault case a few weeks ago: there, one of the victims was video-taped during her review of a photo array of potential suspects. As she looked at each photograph, she took her time, and placed each photo on the desk when she did not recognize the person. That is, until she saw the Defendant's photograph. Her reaction was immediate and extreme. The prosecutor ended her Closing Argument by replaying only those last seconds of the video – without comment. The strength of that presentation left a major impact on the jury.

Moral: Don't be tempted to use technology – ANY technology -- unless it makes your presentation clear.