问题描述：
英语翻译
The depositions of witnesses shu xiang liang ,li zhen zhang,ping-kai kwok,and hong bin yu were similarly edited .Finally ,the defense stipulated to redactions in the witness zhang dong yu‘ testimony.Baesd on this record,defendants’ general objection to the nature of the deposition testimony must fail .
Although the jury had plenty of deposition testimony to see and hear the witnesses' responses to the examination ,particularly in the caes of the lengthy depositions of witnesses zhen dong yu and hong bin yu,defendants assert that there were technical problems that prevented the jury from observing the demesnor of the witnesses.In the case of witness zhen dong yu,however,thoes technical problem generally consisted of short omitted lines of testimony that were corrected through the reading of that testimony .those issues did not produce a defense reguest for mistrial.
To obtain relief based on these technical issues on appeal ,defendants would have to demonstrate ,as described above in Section A.1,plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).the existence of these issure ,in light of the efforts made to correct them,cannot be deemed plain errdr .Even if these issues constituted obvious error ,defendants cannot show that ,in the context of the lengthy depositions,their substantial rights were affected or that correction through reversal is required to maintain the fairness of judicial proceedings.
As for defendants' claim that they have been deprived of the opportunity for appellate review of the government's failure to introduce the videotaped depositions into evidence,the appropriate procedure would have been to seek expansion of the record in the district court ,the government noted that it would be able to provide disks of the full depositions,given technical issues with reproducing the actual redacted protions thatwre played for the jury.There were no objection from the defense at that time .The government now seeks to provide those disks through its concurrently filed motion to expand the record with disks containing the video depositions,from which relevant portions were played for the jury at trial.The recordings are the complete depositions and include the portions redacted as a result of the district court 's rulings on the parties' objections(which are reflected in the filed deposition transcripted ) and the portions that were deleted as described above,so that the defense is able ro evalute what the jury did not see and hear and,if necessary ,seek leave to file supplemental briefing as to the depositions .The augmented record demonstrates that in fact the jury had ample opportunity to hear the lengthy examination of the deposed witnesses and evaluated their credibility.The admission of those videotaped depositions comported with defendants' right to fair trial.
有些单词打错了 希望不要在线翻译或是使用翻译软件.看着根本不通顺
The depositions of witnesses shu xiang liang ,li zhen zhang,ping-kai kwok,and hong bin yu were similarly edited .Finally ,the defense stipulated to redactions in the witness zhang dong yu‘ testimony.Baesd on this record,defendants’ general objection to the nature of the deposition testimony must fail .
Although the jury had plenty of deposition testimony to see and hear the witnesses' responses to the examination ,particularly in the caes of the lengthy depositions of witnesses zhen dong yu and hong bin yu,defendants assert that there were technical problems that prevented the jury from observing the demesnor of the witnesses.In the case of witness zhen dong yu,however,thoes technical problem generally consisted of short omitted lines of testimony that were corrected through the reading of that testimony .those issues did not produce a defense reguest for mistrial.
To obtain relief based on these technical issues on appeal ,defendants would have to demonstrate ,as described above in Section A.1,plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).the existence of these issure ,in light of the efforts made to correct them,cannot be deemed plain errdr .Even if these issues constituted obvious error ,defendants cannot show that ,in the context of the lengthy depositions,their substantial rights were affected or that correction through reversal is required to maintain the fairness of judicial proceedings.
As for defendants' claim that they have been deprived of the opportunity for appellate review of the government's failure to introduce the videotaped depositions into evidence,the appropriate procedure would have been to seek expansion of the record in the district court ,the government noted that it would be able to provide disks of the full depositions,given technical issues with reproducing the actual redacted protions thatwre played for the jury.There were no objection from the defense at that time .The government now seeks to provide those disks through its concurrently filed motion to expand the record with disks containing the video depositions,from which relevant portions were played for the jury at trial.The recordings are the complete depositions and include the portions redacted as a result of the district court 's rulings on the parties' objections(which are reflected in the filed deposition transcripted ) and the portions that were deleted as described above,so that the defense is able ro evalute what the jury did not see and hear and,if necessary ,seek leave to file supplemental briefing as to the depositions .The augmented record demonstrates that in fact the jury had ample opportunity to hear the lengthy examination of the deposed witnesses and evaluated their credibility.The admission of those videotaped depositions comported with defendants' right to fair trial.
有些单词打错了 希望不要在线翻译或是使用翻译软件.看着根本不通顺
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读