Mass. R. Evid. 1006
The proponent may use a summary, chart, or the like to prove the content of voluminous writings or records that cannot be conveniently examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. The court may order the proponent to produce the underlying documents or records in court.
Mass. Guid. Evid. 1006
This section, which is taken nearly verbatim from Fed. R. Evid. 1006, reflects Massachusetts practice. See Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
"[I]n a trial embracing so many details and occupying so great a length of time . . . during which a great mass of books and documents were put in evidence, concise statements of their content verified by persons who had prepared them from the originals were the only means for presenting to the jury an intelligible view of the issues involved" (quotation and citations omitted).
Commonwealth v. Greenberg, 339 Mass. 557, 582 (1959). See also the cases cited in Section 611(a), Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence: Control by the Court.
"[C]are must be taken to insure that summaries accurately reflect the contents of the underlying documents and do not function as pedagogical devices that unfairly emphasize part of the proponent's proof" (quotations and citations omitted). Welch v. Keene Corp., 31 Mass. App. Ct. 157, 165-166 (1991). The witness presenting the summary is not permitted to state deductions or inferences but may testify as to the results of any computations performed. Greenberg, 339 Mass. at 582. The court may order that the original be produced. Cf. Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & P.R. Corp., 215 Mass. 381, 390-391 (1913).
For a thoughtful discussion of Section 1006, its relation to Fed. R. Evid. 1006, and its application to summaries of evidence, see Commonwealth v. Wood, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 271 (2016), which is instructive. There, the Commonwealth, as part of its case against a defendant on trial for assault with a deadly weapon, showed the jury a PowerPoint presentation that was a "compilation of various pages chosen from previously-admitted exhibits." Id. at 276. The presentation included cellular phone records; condensed versions of text messages between the defendant, the victim, and a third party; call logs; and maps showing the victim's movement based on data from his GPS tracking bracelet. Id. The Appeals Court held that because the presentation selectively presented excerpts of other exhibits in evidence in such a way that it served to both bolster the Commonwealth's case and rebut the defendant's defense, it was "not merely a neutral summary. It was 'more akin to argument than evidence since [it] organizes the jury's examination of testimony and documents already admitted in evidence.'" Id. at 277, quoting United States v. Bray, 139 F.3d 1104, 1111 (6th Cir. 1998). However, the court found that although the presentation was erroneously admitted, its admission did not prejudice the defendant because "all of the material in [the presentation] was previously admitted in evidence and . . . added little to the Commonwealth's case and detracted little from the defendant's theory at trial." Id. at 282.
A summary of video recordings may be admissible provided the conditions of Section 1006 are otherwise satisfied. Commonwealth v. Sosa, 493 Mass. 104, 115-116 (2023); Commonwealth v. Suarez, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 571-574 & n.12 (2019) (surveillance video compilation). See also Commonwealth v. Chin, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 188, 201-205 (2020) (compilation of surveillance video from different locations). The better practice is to authenticate excerpts copied from an exhibit, even if the entire exhibit has been authenticated and admitted. Sosa, 493 Mass. at 115.