Background
In June 2018, Tavon Graham was indicted in Miami-Dade County for first-degree murder of Laurence Webb and attempted first-degree murder of Vincent Green. At trial, during jury deliberations, the jury submitted three written requests asking to see transcripts of testimony from Vincent Green, Detective Moradiello, and Sean Fleming, specifically requesting “direct and cross” examination for each witness.
Because trial transcripts were unavailable, the trial court provided the jury with Instruction 4.4, which informed them that transcripts could not be provided but that read-back of testimony was available at the court’s discretion. The instruction directed the jury to return to the jury room and, if they could not resolve their questions by relying on their collective memory, they could request a read-back—”as specific as possible.” Graham objected, contending that the jury’s request for all testimony of the named witnesses was already specific and that the court should proceed with the full read-back. The jury ultimately convicted Graham of both crimes. The trial court denied his motion for new trial in April 2024.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Graham’s conviction and sentence. Applying the abuse of discretion standard to trial court decisions regarding jury read-back requests, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by asking the jury to specify which portions of the testimony it wished to hear.
The court relied on Castellon-Lopez v. State, which presented identical facts and held that a trial court instruction properly informs a jury that read-backs are permitted and asks the jury to specify what portions of testimony it would like to hear. The court emphasized that Florida law requires two things: (1) trial courts must not mislead juries into believing read-backs are prohibited, and (2) when a jury requests transcripts, the trial judge should deny the request but inform the jury of the read-back possibility and ask it to identify very specific portions of testimony.
The court rejected Graham’s argument that asking for specification of portions—even when witnesses are identified by name—discourages read-backs or constitutes an abuse of discretion. Asking the jury to be specific is practical and necessary because read-back of an entire witness’s testimony could be extremely burdensome and time-consuming. The instruction here satisfied Florida law by informing the jury that read-backs are permitted, explaining that transcripts were unavailable, and requesting specificity.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts do not abuse discretion by asking juries to specify which portions of testimony they want read back, even after the jury identifies specific witnesses by name in a transcript request.
- An instruction that read-backs are available at the court’s discretion and that the jury should specify the portions it wishes to hear does not mislead a jury into thinking read-backs are prohibited.
- Requiring specificity in jury read-back requests is a proper exercise of trial court discretion and serves the practical purpose of avoiding extremely burdensome replay of entire witness testimony.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Florida law governing jury requests for read-backs of testimony during deliberations. It confirms that trial courts have meaningful discretion to manage jury inquiries about trial testimony without being required to replay entire witness examinations verbatim. The ruling balances two interests: accommodating jurors’ legitimate need to review testimony to resolve factual disputes, while allowing courts to impose reasonable limitations on the scope of read-backs to preserve judicial efficiency and practicality.
For trial practitioners, Graham establishes that asking juries to specify which portions of testimony they wish to hear is a proper and defensible response to general read-back requests. This protective ruling reduces exposure to reversal on appeal when trial courts appropriately manage jury deliberations by directing jurors to identify the specific testimony they need to review rather than replaying hours of trial testimony.