Why did Judge William H. Leery III refuse to have Jeronimo Yanez&#39;s testimony re-read to the jury?
<p><a href="http://www.fox21online.com/2017/06/16/judge-denies-request-reread-yanez-testimony-jury-continues-deliberations/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Judge Denies Request to Reread Yanez Testimony, Jury Continues Deliberations</a></p>

<p>Recall that last year in Minnesota, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile" rel="nofollow noreferrer">officer Jeronimo Yanez killed Philando Castile</a>, who was sitting on the passenger side in the front seat of a car driven by his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, whose cell phone video of the killing was on network TV news. At the time the incident had a high enough profile that President Obama commented on it for probably all of a minute at a press conference.</p>

<p>Jury deliberations in the case began this past Monday. On Friday morning (yesterday, the 16th) jurors asked the judge to have officer Yanez's testimony re-read to them. The judge denied the request. When I heard about that, I thought that any uncertainty about what Yanez had said on the stand could be considered an occasion for reasonable doubt. Late Friday, the jury came back with a not-guilty verdict.</p>

<p>Why would a judge grant or deny such a request?</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.twincities.com/2017/06/13/read-the-judges-instructions-to-the-yanez-jury/" rel="noreferrer">judge's instructions</a> state:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You have been allowed to take notes during the trial. You may take
  those notes with you to the jury room. You should not consider these
  notes binding or conclusive, whether they are your notes or those of
  another juror. The notes should be used as an aid to your memory and
  not as a substitute for it. <em>It is your recollection of the evidence
  that should control. You should disregard anything contrary to your
  recollection that may appear from your own notes or those of another
  juror.</em> You should not give greater weight to a particular piece of
  evidence solely because it is referred to in a note taken by a juror.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There is a <a href="https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2c804845e10d11dab058a118868d70a9?viewType=FullText&amp;originationContext=documenttoc&amp;transitionType=CategoryPageItem&amp;contextData=(sc.Default)" rel="noreferrer">pattern instruction</a> in Washington that addresses requests to rehear testimony:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In making this decision, I want to emphasize that I am making no
  comment on the value or weight to be given to any particular testimony
  in this case. The testimony you requested will be [read to you]
  [replayed for you] here in the courtroom. You will hear it only one
  time. After you have heard the testimony, you will return to the jury
  room and resume your deliberations. When you do, remember that your
  deliberations must take into account all the evidence in the case, not
  just the testimony that you have asked to rehear.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The notes on use state "Although judges have discretion in responding to these requests, the case law disfavors repeating trial testimony for deliberating jurors", followed by the state of the relevant case law. The central point in that discussion is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The concern addressed in the case law is that rereading requested
  selections from a trial transcript can lead jurors to give undue
  emphasis to the selected testimony.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>an additional concern is that reading the trial transcript selections
  to the jurors could constitute an unconstitutional comment on the
  evidence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and finally</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>jurors often request the testimony of a single witness rather than
  requesting balanced testimony from multiple witnesses that more
  accurately reflects the positions taken by both parties. If the judge
  grants such a limited request, then one party's version of the case
  might be unduly emphasized, yet if the judge expands on the request by
  repeating the requested testimony along with other relevant testimony,
  then the judge runs the risk of improperly commenting on the evidence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Minnesota <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule.php?type=cr&amp;id=26" rel="noreferrer">criminal procedure rule 26</a> Subd. 20(2) addresses the matter of rehearing evidence, saying that the court <em>can</em> allow a hearing of specific evidence:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(a) If the jury requests review of specific evidence during
  deliberations, the court may permit review of that evidence after
  notice to the parties and an opportunity to be heard.</p>
  
  <p>(b) Any jury review of depositions, or audio or video material, must
  occur in open court. The court must instruct the jury to suspend
  deliberations during the review.</p>
  
  <p>(c) The prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant must be present
  for the proceedings described in paragraphs (a) and (b), but the
  defendant may personally waive the right to be present.</p>
  
  <p>(d) The court need not submit evidence beyond what the jury requested
  but may submit additional evidence on the same issue to avoid giving
  undue prominence to the requested evidence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This rule where judges have discretion is a change from an earlier rule where judges had an obligation to allow rehearing. When there is no obligation to allow rehearing, the "safer" path is to not allow rehearing.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/state-v-daniels-235" rel="noreferrer">State v. McDaniels</a>, 332 N.W.2d 172, the appeals court notes that </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The judge reasoned that to read the requested portions of the two
  police officers' testimony would give undue prominence to that portion
  of the evidence. The prosecutor argued that three or four other
  witnesses had testified regarding Fifth and Royalston. The testimony
  was widely scattered throughout the transcript between direct and
  cross-examination. To locate all references would be burdensome and
  impractical</p>
</blockquote>

<p>thus reflecting the reasoning underlying the Washington instruction.</p>

<p>In <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2031342/state-v-rean/" rel="noreferrer">State v. Rean</a>, 421 N.W.2d 303, 306 (Minn. 1988), the court turned down a request to rehear testimony, saying "You will have to rely on your memory of the testimony". The Supreme Court concludes that "To avoid giving undue prominence to the testimony requested, and in light of the difficulty of providing all relevant testimony, the jury's request was rejected". It then observes that "Simply because the jury apparently felt that it was at an impasse did not mean that the trial court was obligated to grant the jury's requests". The court rejected "the wooden approach of always granting a request, even an unreasonable one, if the jury says it is at an impasse"</p>

<p>We do not know what objections the prosecution and defense raised regarding the request to rehear, but if one side would likely benefit from a rehearing, the other side is entitled to a "balancing" rehearing (the rules allow the jury to be directed to consider testimony that they did not request a rehearing of); and tit might have been onerous to assemble that evidence.</p>

criminal-law jury testimony