9.Sdoia Photographs, Forum Video Display, Woods Testimony, and Limits on Video Interpretation
64 linesMS. CONRAD: Your Honor, I just wanted to bring a few matters to the Court's attention with respect to witnesses who are coming up. One with respect to the witness Roseann Sdoia. The government indicated that it intends to offer Exhibits 24, 25 and 26. These were among those that we identified as cumulative and unduly prejudicial. It seems like the government had gone from two -- after having said they were going to reduce the number of exhibits, they've gone from two to three.
So I would beg your Honor's judgment on that.
THE COURT: Well --
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, actually, we've reduced other ones. But we didn't add any but we are intending on use all three of those with Ms. Sdoia. They show --
THE COURT: Can you show them to me right now?
MS. CLARKE: I can. I've got them right here in the binder.
THE COURT: I have them right here.
MS. CONRAD: Mr. Mellin is quicker than I.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: With respect to 24, is the witness going to identify herself?
MR. MELLIN: Yes.
THE COURT: Is she in all three pictures?
MR. MELLIN: Yes.
THE COURT: I think they're different enough that they can all be --
MS. CONRAD: Note our objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: With respect to -- the government has produced this large TV screen. I don't know what the exact measurements are for the record. It is considerably larger than any of the monitors certainly and probably larger than the JERS screen that is in the back for jury deliberations.
The government had previously raised this issue during a chambers conference. I don't know if your Honor wants to hear us at sidebar in light of that fact. But the bottom line is none of us recall your Honor stating that they could use this. We have not seen the videos on this screen and don't know what it's going to look like and how it's going to impact the jury.
We continue in our objection to it, but we certainly would like an opportunity to view it ourselves before it's shown to the jury. The government has indicated that there was some ruling but we have no recollection of that collectively.
THE COURT: Well, I don't remember myself, the particulars. I do know it was discussed. My understanding is the request was because the nature of the material to be displayed was digital as opposed to analog and the system is generally analog. It --
MS. CONRAD: I don't know that there was ever any showing, your Honor, that was the case.
THE COURT: No, I don't know there was a showing. There was a representation. I didn't cross-examine them on it.
But let me just say ordinarily equipment issues are not something that rise to this level so I don't think we spend a lot of time on it. If somebody wants to bring in some display equipment, generally if it works --
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry. I can't --
THE COURT: I said from time to time people ask permission to bring in display equipment and generally we allow it. I mean, it's not usually a controversial matter.
MS. CONRAD: Well, it's controversial because of the nature -- the graphic nature of the video. And we did raise this, your Honor, in chambers and registered an objection.
THE COURT: I don't know who wants to --
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, it doesn't change the video at all. The video is the video. All this does is it provides a little better resolution and has a larger screen.
THE COURT: Is this the Watertown vid- -- I mean Cambridge?
MS. CONRAD: No, this is the Forum.
MR. MELLIN: No, no, no, no, no. This is the Forum video.
THE COURT: Oh.
MS. CONRAD: I mean, all of this imagery is digital. I don't know what they mean by analog.
THE COURT: It's this (indicating). It gets -- as I understand it -- I am not a techie, but my understanding is that our system is incompatible with some digital media, that's all.
MR. WEINREB: The original media is digital, the court system is analog. When you go from digital to analog the video degrades considerably. By having a digital display, the jurors see what was actually recorded as opposed to some artificially deteriorated version of it which is just an artifact of the nature of the system in the court.
THE COURT: How is this connected?
MR. WEINREB: It is connected digitally to the display device, to the --
THE COURT: To the source computer?
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: Does that mean it won't be showing through the system?
PAUL BRUEMMER: Your Honor, actually, I believe it comes up under the "all" category. When your Honor chooses, display "all."
THE COURT: So it will be both? It will be both here and in the system?
PAUL BRUEMMER: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I think we can -- you've seen the video, right?
MS. CONRAD: Yes, we've seen the video. We haven't seen it in this format.
THE COURT: I don't think there's a substantial issue as to what its resolution is.
MS. CONRAD: In addition, your Honor, I believe the next witness is Officer Lauren Woods.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: We have a motion pending. Your Honor was given --
THE COURT: I've reviewed the statement, and she may testify.
MS. CONRAD: May I have one moment, please?
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MS. CONRAD: Thank you. I'm sorry. One moment.
Your Honor, just note our objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: There is --
THE COURT: Jury.
MR. BRUCK: There's one last matter. Earlier today, quite unexpectedly an FBI analyst began to characterize the crucial moments of the Forum video describing the defendant as, quote, casually putting down a backpack before we could rise to object, and the Court, of course, sustained the objection.
We would ask the Court to instruct the government to inform all of its witnesses that they are not to provide characterizations or interpretations of evidence that is on the video. There are crucial matters, such as the defendant's intent with relation to the children, that Mr. Weinreb has already given the government's inferences in opening argument, but it's critically important that witnesses not provide their interpretation or their opinion about what the video shows.
And so we make that motion in limine.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I don't object to that in principle. I agree witnesses shouldn't give their opinions about things that are facts. My recollection is that the Court did not sustain the objection. It said that it was fine for the witness to talk about it in general terms. The word "casual," it's very hard to dictate the precise words that come out of witnesses' mouths, so we take the defense's point and --
THE COURT: All right. As a general matter the witnesses should not be interpreting or opinion. We'll proceed.
MR. MELLIN: And, your Honor, may Mr. Bruemmer unplug this screen for now and then plug it back in when Officer Barrett is called?
THE COURT: As necessary.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: All rise for the jury.
(The jury enters the courtroom at 11:57 a.m.)
COURT CLERK: Be seated.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, the government calls Officer Lauren Woods.