Subliminal Messaging
State of Connecticut v. Michael Skakel, SC 16844 (January 24, 2006)
As you may already be aware, WIN Interactive, Inc.’s multimedia presentation used during the prosecution’s closing argument was challenged on appeal and reviewed by approval from the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
The defendant asserted that the state manipulated the defendant’s taperecorded comments about masturbating in a tree to make it seem as if he were confessing to murder. The defendant claimed that the state did this by splicing together a ‘‘deceptively edited version’’ of his taperecorded interview and then using it as a voice-over to photographs of the murder scene. The Court disagreed that the state’s use of the audiovisual exhibits was improper.
The court held the following.
At the close of the state’s rebuttal argument, the state’s attorney played for the jury, in three separate segments, approximately two minutes of the thirty-two minute tape-recorded interview that the defendant had given to Richard Hoffman and which previously had been played for the jury in its entirety during the state’s case-in-chief. In each segment, the state displayed a transcript of the interview on a screen while the corresponding audio was amplified over a speaker.
. . . Finally, at the very end of his rebuttal argument,the state’s attorney stated in regard to the interview conducted by Hoffman: ‘‘And then, the defendant does the most amazing thing . . . . He takes us on his staggering walk down memory lane. He first avoids the driveway oval where the club head was found and, more likely, [where] he first caught up with [the victim], given [Henry] Lee’s testimony about blood in the driveway where the whole terrible thing started. Then he has himself under a street light throwing rocks and yelling into that circle with the exact same motion that had to have been [sic] used to beat [the victim] to death. ‘‘Why this explanation. It’s kind of obvious. As he explained to...Hoffman, what if somebody saw me last night and then . . . .’’ At this point, the state’s attorney stopped talking and the third segment of the Hoffman interview appeared on the screen while the corresponding audio was amplified over the speaker: ‘‘And then I woke up, went to sleep, then I woke up to [Dorothy] Moxley saying ‘Michael, have . . . you seen Martha?’ ’’ Just as the defendant finishes saying, ‘‘ ‘Michael, have . . . you seen Martha,’ ’’ a photograph of the victim, smiling, appeared in the lower right hand corner of the screen beneath the written text. After a short pause, the following text appeared on the screen while the corresponding audio was amplified: ‘‘I’m like, ‘What?’ And I was like still high from the night before, a little drunk, then I was like ‘What?’ I was like ‘Oh my God, did they see me last night?’ And I’m like, ‘I don’t know,’ I’m like, and I remember just having a feeling of panic.’’ At this point, a photograph, previously introduced into evidence, depicting the victim’s body lying under the pine tree, appeared in the lower right-hand corner of the screen, to the side of the written text. After a few seconds, the photograph disappeared and the following text appeared while the corresponding audio was amplified: ‘‘Like ‘Oh shit.’ You know. Like my worry of what I went to bed with, like may...I don’t know, you know what I mean. I just had, I had a feeling of panic.’’ Another photograph, which also had been introduced into evidence, depicting the victim’s badly beaten body, then appeared in the lower righthand corner of the screen, next to the written text. The state’s attorney argued: ‘‘Howcould the sight of Dorothy Moxley possibly produce a feeling of panic in an innocent person, in a person who had gone to sleep knowing nothing of [the victim’s] murder. The evidence tells you that only a person who had experienced that poor girl lying under the tree, not in his dreams but firsthand, would have a cause to panic on awakening that morning.’’
As we previously have stated, ‘‘counsel is entitled to considerable leeway in deciding how best to highlight or to underscore the facts, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, for which there is adequate support in the record. We therefore never have categorically barred counsel’s use of such rhetorical devices, be they linguistic or in the form of visual aids, as long as there is no reasonable likelihood that the particular device employed will confuse the jury or otherwise prejudice the opposing party. Indeed, to our knowledge, no court has erected a per se bar to the use of visual aids by counsel during closing arguments. On the contrary, the use of such aids is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.’’ State v. Ancona, supra, 270 Conn. 598.
We conclude that it was not improper for the state’s attorney to play for the jury approximately two minutes of the defendant’s tape-recorded interview with Hoffman and to display trial exhibit photographs of the victim while the tape was being played. . . .
After viewing the audiovisual presentation, we are not persuaded that there is any reasonable likelihood that the state’s presentation confused the jury or prejudiced the defendant in any way. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the presentation itself was not deceptive. That presentation consisted of the written transcript of the interview with Hoffman, which the jury already had seen in its entirety, the corresponding audio and three unaltered photographs of the victim that had been entered into evidence, one of which depicted her alive and smiling and two of which had been taken at the scene of the crime. As we previously have noted, the three photographs were juxtaposed with the transcript of the defendant’s statements to Hoffman describing his panic upon seeing the victim’s mother on the morning after the victim’s murder but before her body had been discovered. By juxtaposing the photographs of the victim with the defendant’s statements, the state’s attorney sought to convey to the jury in graphic form what the State believed was the real reason for the defendant’s panic, that is, that he had killed the victim.”
Conviction upheld. Multimedia presentation discussed at page 72 of the opinion.
As you may already be aware, WIN Interactive, Inc.’s multimedia presentation used during the prosecution’s closing argument was challenged on appeal and reviewed by approval from the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
The defendant asserted that the state manipulated the defendant’s taperecorded comments about masturbating in a tree to make it seem as if he were confessing to murder. The defendant claimed that the state did this by splicing together a ‘‘deceptively edited version’’ of his taperecorded interview and then using it as a voice-over to photographs of the murder scene. The Court disagreed that the state’s use of the audiovisual exhibits was improper.
The court held the following.
At the close of the state’s rebuttal argument, the state’s attorney played for the jury, in three separate segments, approximately two minutes of the thirty-two minute tape-recorded interview that the defendant had given to Richard Hoffman and which previously had been played for the jury in its entirety during the state’s case-in-chief. In each segment, the state displayed a transcript of the interview on a screen while the corresponding audio was amplified over a speaker.
. . . Finally, at the very end of his rebuttal argument,the state’s attorney stated in regard to the interview conducted by Hoffman: ‘‘And then, the defendant does the most amazing thing . . . . He takes us on his staggering walk down memory lane. He first avoids the driveway oval where the club head was found and, more likely, [where] he first caught up with [the victim], given [Henry] Lee’s testimony about blood in the driveway where the whole terrible thing started. Then he has himself under a street light throwing rocks and yelling into that circle with the exact same motion that had to have been [sic] used to beat [the victim] to death. ‘‘Why this explanation. It’s kind of obvious. As he explained to...Hoffman, what if somebody saw me last night and then . . . .’’ At this point, the state’s attorney stopped talking and the third segment of the Hoffman interview appeared on the screen while the corresponding audio was amplified over the speaker: ‘‘And then I woke up, went to sleep, then I woke up to [Dorothy] Moxley saying ‘Michael, have . . . you seen Martha?’ ’’ Just as the defendant finishes saying, ‘‘ ‘Michael, have . . . you seen Martha,’ ’’ a photograph of the victim, smiling, appeared in the lower right hand corner of the screen beneath the written text. After a short pause, the following text appeared on the screen while the corresponding audio was amplified: ‘‘I’m like, ‘What?’ And I was like still high from the night before, a little drunk, then I was like ‘What?’ I was like ‘Oh my God, did they see me last night?’ And I’m like, ‘I don’t know,’ I’m like, and I remember just having a feeling of panic.’’ At this point, a photograph, previously introduced into evidence, depicting the victim’s body lying under the pine tree, appeared in the lower right-hand corner of the screen, to the side of the written text. After a few seconds, the photograph disappeared and the following text appeared while the corresponding audio was amplified: ‘‘Like ‘Oh shit.’ You know. Like my worry of what I went to bed with, like may...I don’t know, you know what I mean. I just had, I had a feeling of panic.’’ Another photograph, which also had been introduced into evidence, depicting the victim’s badly beaten body, then appeared in the lower righthand corner of the screen, next to the written text. The state’s attorney argued: ‘‘Howcould the sight of Dorothy Moxley possibly produce a feeling of panic in an innocent person, in a person who had gone to sleep knowing nothing of [the victim’s] murder. The evidence tells you that only a person who had experienced that poor girl lying under the tree, not in his dreams but firsthand, would have a cause to panic on awakening that morning.’’
As we previously have stated, ‘‘counsel is entitled to considerable leeway in deciding how best to highlight or to underscore the facts, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, for which there is adequate support in the record. We therefore never have categorically barred counsel’s use of such rhetorical devices, be they linguistic or in the form of visual aids, as long as there is no reasonable likelihood that the particular device employed will confuse the jury or otherwise prejudice the opposing party. Indeed, to our knowledge, no court has erected a per se bar to the use of visual aids by counsel during closing arguments. On the contrary, the use of such aids is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.’’ State v. Ancona, supra, 270 Conn. 598.
We conclude that it was not improper for the state’s attorney to play for the jury approximately two minutes of the defendant’s tape-recorded interview with Hoffman and to display trial exhibit photographs of the victim while the tape was being played. . . .
After viewing the audiovisual presentation, we are not persuaded that there is any reasonable likelihood that the state’s presentation confused the jury or prejudiced the defendant in any way. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the presentation itself was not deceptive. That presentation consisted of the written transcript of the interview with Hoffman, which the jury already had seen in its entirety, the corresponding audio and three unaltered photographs of the victim that had been entered into evidence, one of which depicted her alive and smiling and two of which had been taken at the scene of the crime. As we previously have noted, the three photographs were juxtaposed with the transcript of the defendant’s statements to Hoffman describing his panic upon seeing the victim’s mother on the morning after the victim’s murder but before her body had been discovered. By juxtaposing the photographs of the victim with the defendant’s statements, the state’s attorney sought to convey to the jury in graphic form what the State believed was the real reason for the defendant’s panic, that is, that he had killed the victim.”
Conviction upheld. Multimedia presentation discussed at page 72 of the opinion.
posted by Brian Carney at 8:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home