Two appellants challenged convictions arising from a failed police takedown, raising issues about jury exhortation, a police-created videotaped re-enactment, and the timing of a Corbett ruling.
The court held that the trial judge improperly exhorted the jury and imposed a deadline on deliberations, creating a reasonable possibility of coercion and requiring a new trial for both appellants.
The court further held that the videotaped re-enactment was wrongly admitted against one appellant because it inaccurately depicted undisputed facts, presented only the prosecution version of disputed events, had little or no probative value, and was highly prejudicial.
The court also found prejudicial error in delaying the Corbett ruling until after the appellant completed examination-in-chief, undermining the fairness of the jury's credibility assessment.
