ILNews

Translated transcripts necessary for jury

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court didn’t abuse its discretion when it admitted transcripts translated into English of drug transactions recorded in Spanish because the jury wouldn’t be able to understand the recording, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Noe Romo challenged the admission of the English transcripts of drug transactions he participated in with a confidential informant in Spanish. Romo, who was convicted of three counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, claimed the transcripts could only be admitted and given to the jury if the recordings were admitted and played for the jury. Romo’s attorney at trial argued that Grimes v. State, 633 N.E.2d. 262, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) says transcripts can only be used to help a jury understand audio tapes, but the trial judge saw no point in playing the Spanish audio when the jury wouldn’t be able to understand it. The judge allowed the transcripts as a substitute because they will “help the trier of fact.” The jury only received the transcripts, but both the transcripts and recordings were admitted into evidence.

In Bryan v. State, 450 N.E.2d 53, 59 (Ind. 1983), the Indiana Supreme Court explicitly discussed that transcripts “may” be necessary when audio is inaudible or to identify speakers, but it also left open the door for other possible circumstances.

“Today, we find that the instant facts present yet a third scenario - one in which the audio recording is not ‘[t]he best evidence of the conversation’ because the recording features a language that is beyond the comprehension of the entire jury,” wrote Judge Carr Darden in Noe Romo v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1003-CR-143.

Given that it was unlikely that the jury would understand enough Spanish and the idiom of the language at issue to understand the recordings, the trial court acted reasonably and within its discretion to give jurors copies of the transcript, the judge continued. There was no abuse of discretion in finding that playing the Spanish recordings as the jury read the English transcripts would not have helped the jury understand the audio and would have been a waste of judicial resources.

The appellate court affirmed that the state laid the proper foundation to establish the accuracy of the transcripts, that Romo wasn’t prejudiced by the admission of the transcripts, and that there was no error in admitting a detective’s opinion testimony. The appellate court inferred based on the detective’s position on the drug task force and his elevated rank that the detective had knowledge beyond that of the average juror regarding narcotics and was sufficiently familiar enough with the language of drug trafficking to provide testimony on the meaning of drug-dealing terms used by Romo in Spanish.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT