I have an audio tape confession for an upcoming trial. It is littered with inadmissible things throughout, both for them and me.

I'm going to let them object to the parts that are bad for them. My understanding is that if they don't object at the time I offer it, their objection is waived.

As for the parts that are bad for me, I'm thinking about just NOT offering those segments of the tapes. This will be a little complicated, and this is actually the point on which I would appreciate some input.

I think I'm permitted to do this by the rules: the defendant's confession is hearsay for him, and they can only get the excised portions in through optional completeness, which does apply to most of the portions I am proposing to excise.

The logistical problem of all this is that I have identified the objectionable portions of the audio tape by tape counter number. So I will have to offer the tape recorder, and then offer the tape, but only certain identifiable portions of it (i.e., tape counter 0-100, 106-200, 207-250, etc.).

DOES THIS SOUND LIKE A FREAKING NIGHTMARE TO ANYONE ELSE???

Anyway, something like this will have do be done. I'm just a little nervous about having to lord over the tape player and kill the volume for the parts that were never admitted.

I would appeciate any advice y'all have.

HOOK 'EM.
Johnny

If you are seeking admission of the tape, you really aren't able to "object" to parts of it just because they're bad for you. You could, however, seek a stipulation from the defense that you will both agree to redact portions of the tape prior to it being admitted. You can then dub the tape to another tape, pausing the blank tape to which you're copying the original during recording whenever you have to redact a portion, and then you don't have to worry about muting or forwarding the tape (and the defense has then agreed to the redacted version of the original tape so you don't have an admissibility objection). However, if the defense is only willing to stipulate to redacting the parts that they don't want in, and you really feel there's an admissibility problem on other parts of the tape, you'll have to have a pretrial hearing on the issue. If they raise optional completeness to the parts YOU don't want in, then you could argue the same about the parts THEY don't want in. Of course, if the issues with the tape turn out to be too big a problem, you can always just have the person who took the confession testify as to what the defendant said, but I don't think it's nearly as effective to the jury as having the words coming out of the defendant's own mouth.

Good luck!

G

p.s. I also tried to email this to your address in your profile but it bounced.

You're kind of straddling a fine line. If you move to admit the tape and the Judge does so--the entire tape is in evidence regardless of the portions later published to the jury. I think the danger in your apporach is that if you don't prepare a redacted copy of the tape, the Defendant may very well object and have the court sustain the objection (i.e. the defendant invoking counsel or talking about his prior DWIs on tape). You're then left without being able to admit any of the tape.

Generally (and in every DWI case) we move to admit the tape. If the Defendant objects, we have a redacted tape ready to go and move to admit that. Always have the officer watch/listen to the original tape and redacted tape prior to trial.

We've begun moving audio cassettes and VHS tapes to digital files b/c its so much easier to edit them and produce redacted versions. For audio files, its hard to beat a program called "Audacity" for ease of use.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any questions.

My thought was to ID the original confession first but not admit imto evidence since it has extranous offenses mentioned.

Offer and admit a redacted cd

Offer a tape that is the same as the redacted CD due to the computer problems in the jury room

What a pain!

You definately need a redacted tape. First, you cannot rely on the tape recorder's counter numbers to be consistent. My guess is that the tape expands or contracts from either heat or re-use, or both. All the counter number will do is get you in the neighborhood of the part you are concerned about. At least, that has been my experience.

Second, you want a tape that the jury can replay to their heart's content during deliberations. If you have a tape which has portions that are off limits to the jury, if they want to rehear the tape, they have to come back into court and have you play it for them. This discourages their rehearing it. I think the more a jury listens to tapes like that, the better.

Thanks for all your suggestions. The main thing I have learned from this is the value of an admissible written statement. Nothing like being able to just go in with a black marker.

I think I'm gonna transfer my audio tapes to computer files and then just make multiple copies that account for all the various permutations of possible rulings on the dicey parts. Just kill me.

Convert your recording to digital format using audacity or something else - audacity is very good.

Open the recoring up as a wav or some other format and "cut" it into pieces. Find the start and stop point of the sections you think might be a problem. Once you have defined these sections, this file will become your master. Depending on how things go, you can go back and mute individual sections with the click of a mouse, export the new audio file, and burn it to a CD. This might take 10 to 15 minutes if you have already defined your sections. This is much easier than having 7 different files ready to go and keeping track of which is which. You can also play it for teh court and defense before you burn it to make sure defense has no objections and you are following what the court thinks its ruling was.

As to mechanics, Jeff is right. Converting the audio tape to CD format will make the snipping out of potentially inadmissible portions a million times easier.

On the subject of the defense offering certain redacted portions under optional completeness: you better just eat them if they are coming anyhow. They will stand up and tell the jury that but for them the dastardly state would have hidden the "whole truth." Conversely, I wouldn't offer a stmt. where the def. talks about his last two pen trips (for instance) on the theory that it is up to the def. to object. There can be no good faith basis for such an offer and you are just asking for trouble.