Exclusion of the audio portion of an officer’s body-camera footage; Hearsay; Right to a meaningful opportunity to present a defense; Prejudice; Right to a speedy trial; Barker v Wingo; People v Williams; People v Waclawski

The court held that the trial court’s admission of an officer’s body-camera “video but not the unredacted audio fell within the range of principled outcomes[,]” and that defendant was not denied his right to a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. Further, the Barker factors did not establish a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Thus, the court affirmed his domestic violence conviction. He first argued that he was denied a fair trial by the trial court’s decision to exclude the audio portion of the body-camera footage. “The trial court excluded the audio of the three-minute body-camera excerpt on the ground that it was hearsay and that no exception applied.” Defense counsel “stated that he offered the recording solely to show the complainant’s mental and emotional condition while she spoke with the responding officers.” The court noted that he “asked to play the entire three-minute segment, acknowledged that it contained material requiring redaction that he was unable to edit, and did not identify which of the complainant’s words were needed to place her demeanor in context. The visual and audio components of a recording may be evaluated separately for admissibility,” and the trial court here “accommodated counsel’s stated purpose by permitting the jury to view the footage without sound. Given the proffer before it,” it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. Further, the audio “was not critical to defendant’s theory. [He] was able to present that theory through other means. The jury watched the three-minute video and could independently observe the complainant’s facial expressions and body language.” The court concluded that because “the jury heard the substance of [his] challenge to the complainant’s initial account and was able to observe her demeanor for itself, exclusion of the audio did not prevent defendant from presenting his theory that the encounter was less severe than [her] trial testimony suggested.” The court added that, “even if the trial court erred,” he did not show that the audio’s exclusion affected the outcome. The jury acquitted him of three of the four charges he faced. As to his speedy trial claim, while the third Barker factor slightly favored him, the other three weighed against him.