Opinion ID: 2191641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Changes in transcript

Text: In this exception Kerpelman states: 33. Levin has freely, and over objection of the Respondent, made numerous changes in the transcript. These objections appear in the file in the form of letters [sic] from the Respondent. Levin was not authorized by law, and it is unlawful for him to make such changes. He was requested by the Respondent to, at best, make changes by striking through but leaving, the old material so that it could still be seen as part of the record. This too, he refused to do. Again, Kerpelman neither gives the specifics of his allegations nor cites authority for his position. The trial judge patiently went over the transcripts. He wrote to the court reporters involved indicating that he wished to bring to their attention certain errors [he] perceive[d]. He said these corrections were very minor but [he] fe[lt] that the official transcript should reflect accurately what was actually said. In each instance he said: If you do not tell me you disagree with the within by January 9, 1980 (either in writing or verbally), then I will assume that as far as you are concerned, I may correct the official transcripts accordingly. I am sending a copy of this letter to Bar Counsel and Respondent and if they do not object (in writing) on or before January 16, 1980, then I shall actually correct the official transcripts accordingly. If either does so object, in writing before January 16, 1980, I shall set in this matter for hearing promptly. One stenographer stood by his record as to one entry. As to another where the trial judge thought the word other should be none the stenographer believed it should be more. Neither Bar Counsel nor Kerpelman filed objections within the time specified. There are two letters in the file from Kerpelman after the deadline set in Judge Levin's letters. One such letter, which hardly can be called an objection, is dated February 1, 1980. It states: Citizen Marshall A. Levin Criminal Courts Building Courthouse Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE: Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kerpelman Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 1, Sept. Term 1979 Citizen Levin: I have your various letters concerning errata in the transcript. I am reminded of the sage who said: Thou seest the mote in the eye of thy brother but seest not the beam in thy own eye. Why don't you disqualify yourself in this matter as your oath of office requires you to do. /s/ Kerpelman Kerpelman K/bg cc: J. Martin McDonough, Attorney The other letter is dated January 29. It demand[s] that no changes be made. It also demand[s] that if there are changes that the transcript be made to show what the reading was before [the judge] changed it and what the reading was after [he] changed it. (Emphasis Kerpelman's.) The record makes abundantly plain the bases for change. The following are a few examples selected at random from the various changes proposed by Judge Levin: DATE PAGE LINE AS IN TRANSCRIPT SHOULD BE 5/28/79 42 19 Mosher Moser 5/29/79 271 13 Slicker Slicher 6/19/79 83 24 to too 6/19/79 147 4 aggitated agitated 7/16/79 80 12 or are 9/7/79 6 7 epitaphs epithets 9/10/79 103 8 affect effect 9/10/79 106 10 insistance insistence This contention is without merit.