There are many occasions when a jury deliberating in a criminal case or will ask for a “read-back” of the testimony of certain witnesses to help resolve a factual contest.  Requests of this nature are routinely granted.

Where, however, a jury requests to review a videotape of a witness’s testimony, the issue becomes a bit more complicated.  One of the first cases to address the issue concluded that where a jury seeks to watch a playback of videotaped testimony of the government’s witness’s, a trial judge should first offer to read the transcripts of the testimony.  The reasoning behind that ruling is that the prosecution witness can be brought before the jury a second time after the defense has rested its case and “all the animation, passion, or sympathy originally conveyed (by the witness) are again presented to the jury”.  In short, the Court determined that the procedure was an unfair disadvantage to the defendant. 

Recently, an Appellate Division panel concluded that in those courtrooms where only a videotaped record is created, a read-back is virtually impossible without adjourning the trial for an extended term to permit the production of a stenographic record.  Resultantly,  the court concluded that the judge’s decision to allow the jury to review the videotape of a government’s witness was not prejudicial error because it was well within the sound discretion of the Trial Court.