Summaries have been said to fall into two categories: those which constitute evidence in and of themselves, and those which summarize evidence previously admitted.{footnote}United States v. Wood, 943 F.2d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991).{/footnote}  The former typically summarize documents too voluminous to be readily handles as exhibits, and are explicitly provided for under FRE 1006.  The latter are sometimes referred to as "pedagogical devices"{footnote}Pierce v. Ramsey Winch Co., 753 F.2d 416, 431 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. Wood, 943 F.2d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991).{/footnote} or "testimonial aids",{footnote}United States v. Poschwatta, 829 F.2d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1064, 108 S.Ct. 1024, 98 L.ed.2d 989 (1988).{/footnote} and while they are not explicitly discussed in the federal rules, they have sometimes been held admissible under FRE 611(a).{footnote}United States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150, 1160 (4th Cir. 1995).{/footnote}

Voluminous Documents

The contents of voluminous writings may be presented in the form of a summary.{footnote} [3984]  FRE  1006; United States v. Nathan, 536 F.2d 988, 996 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 930, 97 S.Ct. 337, 50 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); United States v. Scales, 594 F.2d 558, 563 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 2168, 60 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1979)(prosecution for conversion of union assets).{/footnote} There are four foundational requirements for a summary of documents:

(1) the documents summarized must be too volumnious for in-court examination;

(2) the underlying documents must be admissible;{footnote}Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 1994)(summary of financial transactions between insured and broker inadmissible where broker had refused to produce underlying computer tapes and court could not determine whether tapes were admissible); Ford Motor Co. v. Auto Supply Co., Inc., 661 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir. 1981); United States v. Johnson, 594 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 451, 62 L.Ed. 2d 376 (1979); State Office Systems v. Olivetti Corp. of America, 762 F.2d 843, 845 (10th Cir. 1985).

See also Harris Market Research v. Marshall Marketing and Communications, Inc., 948 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1991)(summaries admissible where underlying business records admitted without objection).
{/footnote}

(3) all of the records from which the summary is drawn must have been made available to the opposing party reasonably in advance of trial.{footnote}Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 72 F.3d 1003 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. granted, vacated 116 S.Ct. 2576; Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 1994)(summary of financial transactions between insured and broker inadmissible where broker had refused to produce underlying computer tapes); Pritchard v. Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co., 295 F.2d 292, 300-01 (3d Cir. 1961); United States v. Clements, 588 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Kim, 595 F.2d 755, 764 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

Cal. § 1509.

CHECK In re Marriage of Westcott, 163 Ill. App. 3d 168, 516 N.E.2d 566 (1st Dist. 1987).

But see Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1992)(official I.R.S. forms indicating when assessments made not inadmissible on the grounds that government faile to make actual assessments themselves available; records were probative in and of themselves).{/footnote}

(4) the summaries must "fairly represent" the underlying documents.{footnote} [3987] Gordon v. United States, 438 F.2d 858, 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 828, 92 S.Ct. 63, 30 L.Ed. 2d 56 (1971), Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp. 751 F.2d 1507, 1516 (9th Cir. 1985)(summaries of time sheets).{/footnote}

Whether to admit a summary is a matter of discretion for the trial court.{footnote} Barnes Group, Inc. v. C & C Products, Inc., 716 F.2d 1023, 1034 n. 30 (4th Cir. 1983); Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp. 751 F.2d 1507, 1516 (9th Cir. 1985); Vasey v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d 1460 (10th Cir. 1994)(summary properly excluded where proponent’s counsel could not explain relevant portions); Harris Market Research v. Marshall Marketing and Communications, Inc., 948 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir. 1991)(business records).

But see Reinke v. Sanitary District, 260 Ill. 380, 103 N.E. 236 (1913)(error to disallow use of chart depicting rainfall).{/footnote} 

Summaries have been excluded where they were shown to contain numerous errors.{footnote} [3989]  Potamkin Cadillac Corp. v. B.R.I. Coverage Corp., 38 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 1994)(summary of financial transactions between insured and broker inadmissible where they contained numerous errors). {/footnote}   Summaries are also inadmissible where they contain information not found in the documents purportedly summarized.{footnote}Pritchard v. Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co., 295 F.2d 292, 300-01 (3d Cir. 1961); White Indus., Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 611 F. Supp. 1049, 1070-71 (W.D. Mo. 1985)(excluding file summaries).{/footnote}

A summary need not be prepared or testified to by an expert or someone with personal knowledge of the underlying events or transactions, so long as the witness testifies that the summary accurately reflects the documents on which it is based.{footnote} [3991]  United States v. Scales, 594 F.2d 558, 563 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 2168, 60 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1979); United States v. Atchley, 699 F.2d 1055 (11th Cir. 1983)(ATF agent permitted to testify to chart he designed to summarize telephone records previously introduced into evidence).{/footnote}

Form of Summary.  A chart is not rendered inadmissible by virue of the fact that it has been organized by associating the evidence with particular claims or counts in the indictment.{footnote}United States v. Scales, 594 F.2d 558, 563 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 2168, 60 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1979).{/footnote}   Objections that a chart was so large as to be undult prejudicial have generally been rejected.{footnote}United States v. Nathan, 536 F.2d 988, 992 n. 5 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 930, 97 S.Ct. 337, 50 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976); United States v. Scales, 594 F.2d 558, 563 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 2168, 60 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1979).

{/footnote}

Charts Summarizing Testimony

Charts may be admitted into evidence which summarize the testimony of other witnesses.{footnote}United States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150, 1160 (4th Cir. 1995); Barber v. United States, 271 F.2d 265 (6th Cir. 1959); Epstein v. United States, 246 F.2d 563, 570 (6th Cir. 1957).{/footnote}

Tape Recordings

One appellate court has also approved a judge’s summarization of a tape recorded conversation in order to avoid prejudice to a co-defendant.{footnote}United States v. Phelps, 733 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir. 1984).{/footnote}

Summary Testimony

Particularly at the close of a lengthy or complex case, courts have generally allowed a witness to summarize evidence previously presented by prior witnesses, the federal courts citing FRE 1006.{footnote}See Note, Summarizing Prior Witness Testimony: Admissible Evidence, Pedagogical Devoce, or Violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 161, Fall 1996.
{/footnote}  This practice has commonly been approved with respect to FBI agents testifying as summary witnesses in complex prosecutions.{footnote}United States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 266 (1995);  United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870, 99 S.Ct. 200, 58 L.Ed.2d 182 (1978)(FBI agent’s testimony  summarized documentary evidence and testimony); United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327, 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1226, 104 S.Ct. 2678, 81 L.Ed.2d 874 (1984)(FBI agent and certified public accountant allowed to summarize evidence regarding complex cash flow through offshore companies).
{/footnote}

Submitting Summary to Jury

Where an exhibit summarizes evidence that has already been admitted, it has been contended that the summary exhibit should not be admitted{footnote}United States v. Wood, 943 F.2d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991).

But see  United States v. Poschwatta, 829 F.2d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1064, 108 S.Ct. 1024, 98 L.ed.2d 989 (1988)(admitting into evidence summary of other admiited evidence not abuse of discretion).{/footnote} or allowed into the jury room{footnote}United States v. Wood, 943 F.2d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991).{/footnote} without the consent of all parties.{footnote}Weinstein & 1006[07].{/footnote}

Bibliography

Note, Summarizing Prior Witness Testimony: Admissible Evidence, Pedagogical Devoce, or Violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 161, Fall 1996.

Related Articles

BUSINESS RECORDS; LOST PROFITS, EVIDENCE OF; OFFICIAL RECORDS AND REPORTS; PUBLICATIONS.