ILNews

YouTube video prejudiced jury

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The use of a YouTube video during closing arguments as a demonstrative aid by the state warrants a reversal of a robbery conviction because it may have prejudiced the jury, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Terrence Miller v. State of Indiana, No. 09A02-0812-CR-1133, Terrence Miller appealed his conviction of Class B felony robbery and 18-year sentence to the Indiana Department of Correction. He claimed the trial court shouldn't have allowed the prosecutor to use a YouTube video created for school administrators to show how easily people could conceal weapons inside their clothing. The prosecutor noted before playing the video for the jury that it had nothing to do with the case.

Miller's defense was mistaken identity, and the fact whether the robber had a concealed weapon wasn't challenged at trial. The use of the video didn't meet the factors under Peterson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 265, 270 (Ind. 1987), the Court of Appeals determined.

Judges Melissa May and Paul Barnes concluded the use of the YouTube video was prejudicial to the jury and could have caused them to view Miller negatively. The majority reversed his conviction.

Chief Judge John Baker dissented, finding the error of using the video wasn't reversible. Because Miller's defense was mistaken identity, the YouTube video wasn't prejudicial to Miller.

"I cannot conclude that the video was so inflammatory that it would have altered the way in which the jury viewed Miller and the case as a whole, and given that the video was irrelevant to Miller's defense, I can only conclude that the trial court's decision to permit the State to show the video to the jury was harmless error," he wrote.

Based on Miller's other arguments for reversal, the chief judge found Miller wasn't entitled to relief on those grounds and would affirm the conviction.

Judge Barnes concurred with Judge May in a separate opinion, addressing Chief Judge Baker's stance, but he believed the video was "the proverbial evidentiary harpoon that skewed the ability of the jury to fairly and impartially decide the case."

"I am always reluctant to reverse jury verdicts, but I am never reluctant to attempt, as I view it, to ensure fairness. I do not think Miller got a fair shake here, and I vote with Judge May to reverse," he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT