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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT