Taped phone conversations can go a long way in proving a state prosecutors’ case, but the discussions they reveal are often out of context, confusing and difficult to follow. That’s not to mention that they regularly include information that’s not relevant to the case and could even be prejudicial to the person charged with a crime. Florida’s First District Court of Appeal recently explained how judges way the value of such evidence against its possible prejudicial effect.
Defendant was charged with conspiracy to tamper with a victim, stemming from a recorded jail cell phone call between Defendant and his girlfriend. He was in jail at the time facing charges of molestation against a minor. During the phone call, Defendant asked his girlfriend to “get a hold of” the victim and “talk to her” and to “get a hold of” the victim’s mother “and let her know.” He also asked her to “let them know that somebody stole my phone” and to “call the investigator’s office tomorrow and find out who brought you that phone because you could go press charges on them.”
Prosecutors sought to enter a seven-minute clip of the 17-minute conversation as evidence at trial. They agreed, however, not to mention in court that Defendant was believed to have tampered in a molestation case. But Defendant’s attorney argued that entering the part of the conversation about the supposed stolen phone and in which he asked his girlfriend to contact investigators was irrelevant and prejudicial. He said it would allow the jury to speculate about the underlying charges in which he was charged with tampering.