Opinion ID: 1877310
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Lack of Transcript Warrants Reversal.

Text: Even though a complete transcript cannot be created, we must still determine whether this warrants a reversal. Unavailability of a transcript does not automatically entitle an appellant to a reversal. State v. McFarland, 287 N.W.2d 162, 163 (Iowa 1980). The entire transcript is not required if the record is sufficiently complete to permit full and fair appellate review. Id. at 164. However, when appellate and trial counsel are different, the United States Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of appellate counsel having a complete trial transcript. See Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, 282, 84 S.Ct. 424, 428, 11 L.Ed.2d 331, 335-36 (1964). In Hardy, the concurring opinion discussed the importance of a complete transcript: [T]he most basic and fundamental tool of [an appellate advocate's] profession is the complete trial transcript, through which his trained fingers may leaf and his trained eyes may roam in search of an error, a lead to an error, or even a basis upon which to urge a change in an established and hitherto accepted principle of law. Anything short of a complete transcript is incompatible with effective appellate advocacy. Id. at 288, 84 S.Ct. at 431, 11 L.Ed.2d at 339 (Goldberg, J., concurring). One court described the difficulties an appellate counsel encounters when the record or transcript is not complete: The attorney, [who is] present at trial, should be expected to be aware of any errors or improprieties which may have occurred during the portion of the proceedings not recorded. But when a defendant is represented on appeal by counsel not involved at trial, counsel cannot reasonably be expected to show specific prejudice.... Often, . . . even the most careful consideration of the available transcript will not permit us to discern whether reversible error occurred while the proceedings were not being recorded. In such a case, to require new counsel to establish the irregularities that may have taken place would render illusory an appellant's right to notice plain errors or defects, and render merely technical his right to appeal. United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303, 1306 (5th Cir.1977) (citation omitted). Here, through no fault of Staudt or T.V., Staudt was unable to review important portions of the record of the hearing. Further, he had no independent knowledge of trial events except as revealed by the incomplete, uncertified transcript. With these impediments, Staudt is unable to establish whether substantial evidence of guilt was presented during the inaudible or unrecorded portions of the adjudicatory hearing. Therefore, we conclude the unavailability of a complete transcript in this case entitles T.V. to a new hearing.