Warning: Parameter 1 to Cite::clearState() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 1 to Cite::clearState() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 1 to Cite::clearState() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 2 to Cite::checkRefsNoReferences() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 2 to Cite::checkRefsNoReferences() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 1 to Cite::clearState() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 1 to Cite::clearState() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 2 to Cite::checkRefsNoReferences() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 2 to Cite::checkRefsNoReferences() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 1 to CiteHooks::onResourceLoaderRegisterModules() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195

Warning: Parameter 1 to Cite::clearState() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c04/h02/mnt/181397/domains/mnbenchbook.org/html/includes/Hooks.php on line 195
RULES FOR HANDLING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT TRIAL - MN Bench Book - Trial Procedures & Practices for Judges
 Actions

RULES FOR HANDLING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

From MN Bench Book - Trial Procedures & Practices for Judges

Click on “TRIAL PROCEDURES & PRACTICES FOR JUDGES” above to return to main page


1. MARKING EXHIBITS=

ALL EXHIBITS MUST BE MARKED BY THE REPORTER FOR IDENTIFICATION BEFORE ANY REFERENCE AT TRIAL TO THE EXHIBIT CAN BE MADE.[1] IN MINNESOTA EXHIBITS ARE MARKED BY NUMBER, NOT LETTER, AND ARE NOT MARKED TO IDENTIFY THE OFFERING PARTY.

MARKING CONVENTIONS

  • REQUIRING ATTORNEYS TO REFER TO EXHIBIT NUMBER WHEN QUESTIONING A WITNESS ABOUT AN EXHIBIT

For example, “23” is correct; “Defense Exhibit H” is incorrect. The exhibits may be numbered sequentially, or the parties may be pre-assigned blocks of numbers.[2]

When numerous exhibits will be entered, all counsel should meet with the reporter either before trial or during a recess to mark the exhibits.[3] When a group of “similar and related” or “integrated” documents will be entered, they should be marked as a single exhibit.[4] A specific page or document can be referred to by additionally marking it with an appended Arabic letter, e.g. “23-e.”

When a document is first disclosed during trial, counsel should have it marked by the reporter for identification before identifying it to the record or having the witness testify as to what the document is.[5]

When identifying the exhibit to the record for the first time, the proponent may refer to it only by its exhibit number and a generic reference to its general nature.[6] Adding descriptors that “state or even imply the content” is improper, and when found to be prejudicial may unilaterally lead to a mistrial.[7] When handling prejudicial materials, references to the content should be made outside of the jury’s presence.[8]

When an attorney is examining a witness he or she should always refer to the exhibit by its number.[9] This procedure insures that the record will be clear as to what specific piece of evidence is being referred to in the attorney's examination.

2. REDACTION OF PORTION OF WRITTEN, AUDITORY OR IMAGE EVIDENCE

To prevent undue prejudice the court can order the redaction. removal or exclusion of a portion of written, auditory or visual imagery evidence.[10] It can be reversible error for the court to admit redacted evidence.[11] It is not plain error for a court to not redact a portion of a document, audio tape or video imagery, sua sponte, before the entire item is admitted into evidence if the defendant does not object to the portion of the evidence nor requests a limiting instruction [12]

3. PROCEDURE FOR LOCATION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN COURTROOM BEFORE BEING OFFERED SO THAT ITEMS NOT YET ADMITTED ARE NOT SEEN BY JURY.

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHALL BE BROUGHT INTO THE COURTROOM AND STORED IN A MANNER SUCH THAT THE JURY DOES NOT SEE IT PRIOR TO FOUNDATION BEING LAID FOR ITS ADMISSION.[13] Jury exposure to non-admitted evidence must be cured.[14] Typically, this is done with curative instructions.[15]


4. USE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN ATTORNEY’S OPENING STATEMENTS

The General Rules of Practice for Minnesota District Courts set out the guidelines for the use of physical evidence in an opening statement:

“During opening statement counsel may use a blackboard or paper for illustration only. There shall be no display to the jury of, nor reference to, any chart, graph, map, picture, model or any other graphic device unless, outside the presence of the jurors: (1) It has been admitted into evidence; or (2) Such display or reference has been stipulated to; or (3) Leave of court for such reference or display has been obtained.”[16]

The same rules apply to electronic visual aids, such as Power Point demonstrations.[17]

Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court's decision to let the prosecutor display the handgun during his opening statement was well within its discretion. The court said in a footnote, however, that getting permission to display a gun during opening statement does not give a prosecutor "a license to display tangible evidence in any way the prosecutor sees fit." The court recognized that a display of such evidence may constitute prosecutorial misconduct justifying a mistrial if it "goes beyond permissible oratorical flair, is done in a flamboyant, erratic, or frightening manner, or where the prosecutor effectively converts himself into an unsworn witness."[18]


5. PROCEDURE FOR RETENTION, LOCATION, PRESERVATION, SECURITY OF ADMITTED EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL

Immediately after admission and publication of an exhibit, counsel should retrieve the evidence from the witness and give it to court personnel.[19] Dangerous or contraband evidence may be removed from the courtroom entirely and returned to proper custodial authorities.[20] Admitted evidence after publication to the jury, if such evidence is published, should be removed from the view of the jury. This procedure prevents one party from strategically leaving a dramatic piece of evidence, such as a bloody piece of clothing a firearm or a knife, exposed to the jury during the remainder of the trial.

6. PRO SE HANDLING OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

THE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE IS TO HAVE ALL PHYSICAL EXHIBITS HANDLED AND MOVED AROUND THE COURTROOM ONLY BY A BAILIF OR CLERK One practice in Pro Se cases is to not let either the Pro Se defendant or the prosecutor handle exhibits. The exhibits will be handled and moved around the courtroom and shown to witnesses by a court clerk or bailiff. This preserves the sense of fairness and eliminates the concerns and problems of a Pro Se defendant handling dangerous evidentiary objects.


7. DANGEROUS OR CONTRABAND EVIDENCE—PROCEDURE FOR BRINGING THE EVIDENCE INTO THE COURTROOM

The procedure for handling dangerous and hazardous evidence in the courtroom itself is left to the trial court’s discretion.[21] When hazardous exhibits, typically guns, ammunition, explosives, and controlled substances, are used, the physical evidence must still enter the courtroom and be properly identified and marked; however, it may then be withdrawn from the courtroom.[22] Thereafter, a photograph, videotape, sample, or other facsimile may be used, pursuant to court approval.[23]

During the trial, the judge can refuse to allow an accepted, but hazardous, exhibit to be examined by the jury prior to deliberation.[24] This typically arises with guns, explosives, and controlled substances.[25] Washington Court Rule (I)(20) "Security in Handling Court Exhibits." WA R GEN GR 20</ref> This can be done on either the petition of any party, or on the court’s own initiative.

Controlled substances and other contraband must also be presented in court, but should remain in sealed containers with labels that clearly describe the contents.[26] If it is necessary to unseal the container, it should be resealed immediately upon completion.[27]

8. PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY ON HOW DANGEROUS OR DISTURBING EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THEM

Dangerous evidence can be viewed by the jury outside of the jury room by displaying the evidence, properly sealed if a bio-hazard or properly incapacitated if a weapon or dangerous object, to the jury in the courtroom. The item can be placed on a table in the courtroom and the jury brought out and given an opportunity to observe it. No one should be in the courtroom when the jury is so viewing such evidence. The weight and credibility accorded to the evidence is a matter for the jury to decide.

9. PROCEDURE FOR HOW SUCH EVIDENCE IS TO BE HANDLED DURING DELIBERATIONS

Although exhibits are generally sent to the jury room,[28] either party can challenge the submission of a particular exhibit, and the trial judge has discretion on whether to send hazardous evidence to the jury room for deliberations.[29] The hazardous nature of an exhibit is a legitimate reason to disallow submission of an exhibit


10. DISTURBING OR SHOCKING PHOTOGRAPHS; CORPSE, AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS, CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS; CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY

The general rule regarding the admissibility of photographs is:

“Photographs are admissible as competent evidence where they accurately portray anything which it is competent for a witness to describe in words, or where they are helpful as an aid to a verbal description of objects and conditions, provided they are relevant to some material issue; and they are not rendered inadmissible merely because they vividly bring to jurors the details of a shocking crime or incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice.”[30] “They are not rendered inadmissible merely because they ‘incidentally tend to arouse passion or prejudice.’”[31]

Rule 403 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence places a limit on the admissibility of disturbing or shocking photographs.[32] Courts have broad discretion to decide what types of photographs are inadmissible under Rule 403, and their decisions should only been reversed when clear abuse of discretion is present.[33] It is important that the court review these photos, and weigh the probative value versus possible prejudice, prior to submitting them to the jury.[34] The Minnesota Supreme Court has cautioned trial judges to be very careful what they admit, and to allow no more than necessary.[35]

A significant majority of appellate courts in Minnesota have deferred to trial courts’ judgments in admitting gruesome photographs.[36] Even when a trial court has abused its discretion in admitting a photo, if the photo is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt the lower court decision is affirmed


11. DEMONSTRATION OR DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

  • PHYSICAL ACT
  • OPERATION OF A DEVICE
  • OPERATION OF A FIREARM
  • COMPUTER GENERATED ANIMATION
  • USE OF VIDEO VS LIVE DEMONSTRATION

Generally, any demonstrative evidence that is relevant[37] and more probative than prejudicial[38] is admissible if it will "assist the jury in understanding the witness' testimony"[39] and is an “accurate representation of the evidence in the record to which it relates.”[40] Demonstrative evidence should only be used to illustrate or demonstrate something a witness has testified too.[41] Proper foundation must be laid before any demonstrative evidence can be presented to the jury.[42] Trial courts have wide latitude in determining whether these requirements have been met, and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.[43] Essentially the same rules that apply to live demonstrations also apply to pre-recorded demonstrations.[44] The proposed demonstration must occur under substantially similar circumstances to the event it is trying to depict.[45] When a firearm demonstration was performed for the jury, it was not improper because the gun used was the same model as the murder weapon, and the demonstration was necessary to impeach a witness’s testimony.[46] In State v. Stewart[47] the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed the relatively new issue of computer animated demonstrations. The court found that this particular use was improper because it inaccurately portrayed the incident.[48] They cautioned against the future use of animation, saying that:

“Because of its dramatic power, proposed animations must be carefully scrutinized for proper foundation, relevancy, accuracy, and the potential for undue prejudice. In the future, if there is a proper foundation for such evidence, the district court should issue a cautionary instruction relating to the animation before playing the animation to the jury and in final instructions to help insure its proper use.”


12. PUBLICATION

DOES JURY SEE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE WHEN ADMITTED? It is within the trial court’s discretion whether or not to allow publication of an admitted exhibit immediately after the exhibit has been admitted. The best practice is to ask the offering attorney why the jury needs to see the exhibit at this point in the trial. Publishing evidence to the jury is both time-consuming and disrupts the examination of witnesses.[49] Because of this, evidence may be handed to the jury only when it is subject to brief examination.[50] When a jury is examining a piece of admitted and published evidence no questioning should take place other than questions about the exhibit.

At times, counsel will claim that it is critical that the jury examine a particular piece of evidence immediately. The trial court has discretion on whether to grant this request.[51] If permission to publish is granted and the exhibit is a document or a photograph counsel should provide copies for all of the jurors.[52] The use of data projectors is recommended.[53]

ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO PRESENTATION OF ACTUAL ADMITTED EXHIBIT DUPLICATE ORIGINALS, DOCUMENT CAMERAS, AND COMPUTERIZED DISPLAYS

Copies of documents, enlargements, and projections are all permissible at the court’s discretion.[54] The use of electronic presentation systems such as document cameras is becoming widespread, and counsel may also use the system to create or display illustrative aids, or enhance an exhibit.[55] The following have all been found to be acceptable uses:[56]

  • One can selectively display the exhibit to courtroom personnel and the jury.
  • In cases with a large number of documents, one can scan documents and store them on a personal computer and call them up with a few keystrokes.
  • Witnesses can annotate an exhibit while retaining the original without annotations.
  • While watching a video tape, one can freeze a frame and annotate the video.
  • One can run computer animated accident reenactments.
  • If one has an audio tape that is hard to hear, one can enhance the jury's understanding of the recorded conversation by using a computer to link a transcript of the conversation with the audio recording.
  • Counsel can use presentation software to enhance arguments.

The following concerns are noted:[57]

  • Counsel should understand how to use the system prior to trial.
  • Often, counsel will have to bring in their own laptop.
  • A back-up plan should be read, in case of equipment failures.

Must determine whether counsel, the court, or a combination control the equipment.

13.POST-TRIAL PRE-DELIBERATION PROCESS WITH ATTORNEYS AND JUDGE OR CLERK TO DETERMINE AND CONFIRM WHAT EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED AND WHAT WILL GO TO JURY.

At the conclusion of the trial, outside the presence of the jury and before deliberations begin the attorneys should review and compare the list of offered and admitted evidence and on the record jointly agree on such list. The attorneys should then physically examine the collection of all admitted physical evidence that is to be given to the jury and on the record jointly agree that collection contains only admitted evidence. The attorneys should agree on the record that the collection of admitted physical evidence can then be given to the jury. Failure to follow such procedure which results in the jury being given excluded and prejudicial evidence or prejudicial objects (physical or documentary evidence) inadvertently included in the evidence to be given to the jury will result in a mistrial.[58]

i. New judge at National Judicial College related homicide case he was presiding over. Pile of evidence sent in to jury room without application of the above procedure. Jury sent out question: “Why did you send in transcript of prior criminal trial of defendant?” Transcript had been used to impeach defendant with a specific inconsistent statement. Mistrial and new trial!!!! Judge had not followed above procedure
ii. U.S. v. Lee, 3rd Cir. No.07-1406 7/17/09 document admitted for contents on front. No one examined back of document, Back of document contained significantly incriminating prejudicial information. Documents had not been reviewed by attorneys at end of trial before submission to jury. Mistrial declared and case retried.

14.LIMITS ON WHAT ADMITTED EVIDENCE CAN BE VIEWED BY THE JURY

The general rule is that exhibits properly admitted into evidence should be sent to the jury room. Courts should limit or prohibit sending to the jury evidence, which by its nature, is likely to appeal to the emotions of the juror, evidence which capsulizes the entire government's case against the defendant or evidence might unduly absorb the attention of the jury.[59]


15.SAFEGUARDING EVIDENCE DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS

The General Rules of Practice for Minnesota District Courts sets out these guidelines for the handling of exhibits:

  1. Return of Exhibits to Court Personnel. Immediately after conclusion of the examination of a witness regarding an exhibit shown to a witness, counsel shall return it to the court personnel.
  2. Exhibits after Trial. Upon the completion of trial, the administrator shall index and retain all exhibits until the case is finally disposed of and all times for appeal have expired and they are either retrieved by the party offering them or destroyed pursuant to Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 128. In the event an appeal is taken, the court administrator shall deliver the exhibits to the Clerk of Appellate Courts in accordance with the procedures of the appellate courts.
  3. Bulky Exhibits. Any time after trial and upon the agreement of all parties, the court administrator may arrange the return of bulky exhibits to the party offering them at trial.”[60]

In a civil case, it is the duty of the party offering an exhibit to retrieve it from the court at the end of the trial.[61] Any evidence not retrieved within 15 days from the end of the trial can be destroyed.[62]




References:

  1. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(b).
  2. Minn.Gen.R.Prac., Rule 130.
  3. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(b).
  4. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(d).
  5. 23 Minn. Prac., Trial Handbook For Minn. Lawyers § 17.19 (2007 ed.) The witness must then testify to what sort of document the exhibit is, in order to "determine the extent of foundation testimony required."
  6. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(e). See also 23 Minn. Prac., Trial Handbook For Minn. Lawyers § 17.19 (2007 ed) ("For example, ‘May the record show that I am now giving to counsel, for examination, Exhibit 81, which purports to be the official record of the Town Board on July 16, 1976,’ is proper. Adding a clause ‘ … and which is offered to show the knowledge of the defendant,’ would be improper.")
  7. If the referred-to portion of the exhibit is found to be inadmissible. 23 Minn. Prac., Trial Handbook For Minn. Lawyers § 17.19 (2007 ed). See also First National Bank v. Schroder, 175 Minn. 341, 343, 221 N.W. 62 (1928) (Objection arguments relating to the content of a document were heard in the presence of the jury. The objection was sustained. The Appellate Court found that "The matter was so fully gone into in the presence of the jury that it is quite clear that no admonition of the court could remove the impression from the minds of the jurors.").
  8. First National Bank v. Schroder, 175 Minn. 341, 344, 221 N.W. 62 (1928).
  9. No actual rule provides for this; it is a pragmatic matter, and is lawfully within the discretion of the court to set and enforce this rule.
  10. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465 (Minn. S. Ct. 2004)
  11. Id.
  12. State v. Tovar, 605 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. 2000)
  13. 23 Minn. Prac., Trial Handbook For Minn. Lawyers § 2.4 (2007 ed.).
  14. The curative measure is at the discretion of the court, see Bray v. Com., 177 S.W.3d 741 (Ky. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2328, 164 L. Ed. 2d 847 (U.S. 2006).
  15. The common route is to provide curative instructions, see, e.g., Com. v. Mullane, 445 Mass. 702, 711-712, 840 N.E.2d 484 (2006). A mistrial is appropriate only when the exposure, in the court’s opinion, is incurable and denies the possibility of an impartial verdict. U.S. v. De Jesus Mateo, 373 F.3d 70, 72 (1st Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 994, 125 S. Ct. 514, 160 L. Ed. 2d 383 (2004).
  16. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 8(a).
  17. See U.S. v. Burns, 298 F.3d 523, 543 (6th Cir. 2002).
  18. Commonwealth v. Parker, Pa., No. 26 EAP 2006, 4/18/07
  19. 51 M. S. A., Civ. Trialbook Section 13.
  20. See infra.
  21. The safety of the courtroom and the persons is a very legitimate concern. "Trial judges have general discretion in managing the trials before them." State v. Erickson, 610 N.W.2d 335, 341 (Minn. 2000), citing State v. Jones, 556 N.W.2d 903, 912 (Minn. 1996). District courts have "inherent power" to regulate whatever is "essential" to their "existence, dignity, and function" in the disposition of cases, "conformable to the laws." State v. Costello, 646 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Minn. 2002). The last phrase refers to statutes, but there is no Minnesota state statute restricting the court’s discretion on this matter. As well, no written procedures exist in state case law, nor even in practice guides or legal journals. The same pattern exists nationally. The only statutory procedure is Washington Court Rule (I)(20) "Security in Handling Court Exhibits," WA R GEN GR 20, which is used herein as a suggested model.
  22. Upon withdrawal, the exhibit can be retained by the presenting party or agency. See Washington Court Rule (I)(20) "Security in Handling Court Exhibits." WA R GEN GR 20.
  23. "The photograph(s), videotape(s), samples or other facsimile representations may be used to demonstrate the existence, quantity, and physical characteristic of the evidence. The order shall direct the disposition of the original evidence and shall state whether the evidence shall be further documented by a descriptive certificate issued by an authorized agency." The court is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the reproduction. Washington Court Rule (I)(20) "Security in Handling Court Exhibits." WA R GEN GR 20.
  24. Generally, exhibits that are subject to a cursory examination may be shown to the jury, with the approval of the court; safety concerns are a legitimate reason to deny a request to publish the exhibit. See infra.
  25. "For purposes of this rule, "hazardous exhibit" means an exhibit that unreasonably threatens the health and safety of persons handling the exhibit, including exhibits having potentially toxic, explosive, or disease-carrying characteristics. Non-exclusive examples of hazardous exhibits include firearms, knives and other weapons, live ammunition, controlled substances, bodily fluid samples, and bloody clothing."
  26. Washington Court Rule (I)(20) "Security in Handling Court Exhibits." WA R GEN GR 20.
  27. Washington Court Rule (I)(20) "Security in Handling Court Exhibits." WA R GEN GR 20.
  28. "The court shall permit the jury, upon retiring for deliberation, to take to the jury room exhibits which have been received in evidence, or copies thereof…" Crim.R. 26.03, subd. 19(1).
  29. "Withholding of exhibits from jury is a matter within sound discretion of trial court." Larson v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc., 305 Minn. 256, 257, 232 N.W.2d 810 (1975).
  30. State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47, 41 N.W.2d 313, 319 (Minn. 1950). See also State v. Stewart, 643 N.W.2d 281, 293-94 (Minn. 2002); State v. Lee, 645 N.W.2d 459, 467-68 (Minn. 2002); State v. Sullivan, 502 N.W.2d 200, 202 (Minn. 1993); State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 416-17 (Minn. 1992).
  31. State v. Schulz, 691 N.W.2d 474, 478 (Minn. 2005) (quoting State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46, 41 N.W.2d 313, 319 (1950)).
  32. MINN. R. EVID. 403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."). See Dunn v. State, 486 N.W.2d 428, 433 (Minn. 1992).
  33. See State v. Schulz, 691 N.W.2d 474, 477 (Minn. 2005) (citing State v. Ashby, 567 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn. 1997); State v. Sullivan, 502 N.W.2d 200, 202 (Minn. 1993); State v. Friend, 493 N.W.2d 540, 544 (Minn. 1992); State v. Borden, 455 N.W.2d 482, 484 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
  34. See State v. Sullivan, 502 N.W.2d 200, 203 (Minn. 1993); State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 417 (Minn. 1992).
  35. See State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68, 74 (Minn. 1992) ("A photograph or videotape should not be admitted if it is only subtly different from other photographic or video evidence. And such exhibits should be limited to a reasonable quantity. The purpose of visual evidence is to inform jurors, not shock and overwhelm them.").
  36. See e.g., State v. Schulz, 691 N.W.2d 474, 479-80 (Minn. 2005) (photograph of tattoo on defendant's stomach of word "Kill," was not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice); Dunn v. State, 486 N.W.2d 428, 433 (Minn. 1992) (autopsy photos admissible because thy were necessary to illustrate medical examiner’s testimony); State v. Sanders, 376 N.W.2d 196 (Minn. 1985) (autopsy photos admissible because they helped give the jury an accurate assessment of the crime itself); State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754 (Minn. 1988) (photos of crime scene and autopsy were admissible to illustrate the crime in order to show premeditation); State v. De Zeler, 41 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. 1950) (gruesome photographs of victims body after the murder were admissible because there was no indication they did not accurately convey the subject matter); State v. Bock, 490 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (autopsy photos taken after victim’s organs were removed were admissible even though injuries were to the head, because pictures accurately depicted medical examiner’s neurological tests to determine brain damage, and depicted defensive injuries); State v. Olson, 436 N.W.2d 817 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989), review denied, certiorari denied, 493 U.S. 862 (autopsy photos admissible to show that victim’s wounds were not consistent with defendant’s testimony).
  37. See MINN. R. EVID. 401.
  38. See MINN. R. EVID. 403.
  39. State v. Rhodes, 627 N.W.2d 74, 84 (Minn. 2001); State v. Walen, 563 N.W.2d 742, 748 (Minn. 1997).
  40. State v. Stewart, 643 N.W.2d 281, 293 (Minn. 2002) (citing State v. DeZeler, 230 Minn. 39, 46-47, 41 N.W.2d 313, 318-19 (1950)).
  41. See 1-13 MINNESOTA EVIDENCE TRIALBOOK III(A) (demonstrative evidence should make other relevant evidence more understandable and persuasive to the fact finder).
  42. See State v. Stewart, 643 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 2002); 1-13 MINNESOTA EVIDENCE TRIALBOOK III(B).
  43. See State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230, 234, 177 N.W.2d 778, 781 (1970).
  44. See State v. Johnson, 291 Minn. 407, 412-13, 192 N.W.2d 87, 91 (1971). See also State v. Rasinski, 464 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (video simulation of car accident was properly admitted since it was relevant and it did not lack foundation); State v. Hopperstad, 367 N.W.2d 546 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (court erred in admitting video reenactment because its relevance was doubtful).
  45. See State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230, 234, 177 N.W.2d 778, 781 (1970).
  46. State v. Walen, 563 N.W.2d 742 (Minn. 1997) (stating that it was not an abuse of discretion to allow a firearm demonstration for the jury when the demonstration was used to impeach a previous witness, and where the gun used was the same type as the murder weapon).
  47. 643 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 2002).
  48. State v. Stewart, 643 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 2002).
  49. Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 12.32 (4th ed.).
  50. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(f). "…Exhibits admitted into evidence, subject to cursory examination, such as photographs and some other demonstrative evidence, may be handed to jurors only after leave is obtained from the court…"
  51. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(f). "…If a party contends that an exhibit not subject to cursory examination is critical and should be handed to jurors in the jury box during the course of the trial, counsel shall request leave from the court…"
  52. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(f). "…Such party shall be prepared to furnish sufficient copies of the exhibit, if reasonably practicable, for all jurors in the event such leave is granted; and upon concluding their examination, the jurors should return the copies to the bailiff…"
  53. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(f). "…In lieu of copies, and if reasonably practicable, enlargements or projections of such exhibits may be utilized. The court may permit counsel to read short exhibits or portions of exhibits to the jury."
  54. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 12(f).
  55. Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 12.32 (4th ed.).
  56. 1 eDiscovery & Digital Evidence § 4:9
  57. Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 12.32 (4th ed.).
  58. U.S. v. Lee, 3rd Cir. No.07-1406 7/17/09
  59. U.S. v. Ming Sen Shiue, 508 F.Supp. 455, (D.C.Minn., 1980.)
  60. MINN. CIV. TRIALBOOK § 13.
  61. MINN. GEN. R. PRAC. 128.
  62. MINN. GEN. R. PRAC. 128.