Opinion ID: 200736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: English Language Issue

Text: 14 This issue involves two statutes: (1) the Jones Act, 48 U.S.C. § 864, which provides that [a]ll pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language, and (2) the Court Reporter Act, 28 U.S.C. § 753(b), which requires that all proceedings in criminal cases [held] in open court ... shall be recorded verbatim. 15 Morales-Madera's first theory confuses the different statutes and different types of evidence. He argues that the Court Reporter Act required the reporter to transcribe literally and somehow translate into English the wiretap tapes as they were played to the jury. That, in our view, is a misreading of the statute. When the court reporter transcribes the testimony of a witness who testifies in Spanish, the interpreter's English translation is the evidence entered in the record under the Jones Act. United States v. Dejesus Boria, 518 F.2d 368, 370 (1st Cir.1975); Bordas & Co. v. Pizarro, 314 F.2d 291, 292 (1st Cir.1963). The playing of recordings, however, presents a different issue. The conversations on the wiretap tapes are not testimony from witnesses before the court that must be recorded in a verbatim transcript. 2 16 Language in some opinions, ours and others, indicates that the Court Reporter Act is violated when the court reporter fails to simultaneously transcribe the contents of recordings heard by the jury. See United States v. Andiarena, 823 F.2d 673, 676 (1st Cir.1987); United States v. McCusker, 936 F.2d 781, 785 (5th Cir.1981). We harbor considerable doubts about this proposition. The Court Reporter Act is not usually understood to require the reporter to record separately the contents of exhibits admitted in evidence. The tapes of the recordings are not testimony but are themselves admitted in evidence as exhibits. See United States v. Young, 105 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1997); United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 455, 480 (7th Cir.1977) (finding no merit to the argument that there was a violation of the Court Reporter Act because the reporter did not transcribe the recorded conversations). We held in United States v. Rengifo, 789 F.2d 975 (1st Cir.1986), that a transcript of a composite audio recording was not testimony even when the transcript was read aloud to the jury. Id. at 977, 983. At any rate, this issue need not be resolved. Even among those courts that find an error under the Court Reporter Act based on the failure to transcribe an audio recording, it is agreed that the error is harmless when the recording itself is entered in the record. See Andiarena, 823 F.2d at 676; McCusker, 936 F.2d at 785. 17 Morales-Madera's next argument is a Jones Act claim that implicates several issues. At the trial level, separate issues arise regarding the submission of English transcripts of Spanish audio recordings to the jury as aids, the proper procedures for ensuring reliable transcription of the taped conversations and reliable translation of those transcripts into English, and the admissibility of English transcripts as evidence. At the appellate level, issues arise regarding compliance at the trial court level with the Jones Act and the Court Reporter Act, the adequacy of the record on which appellate review is based, and the appropriate remedy for non-compliance. 18
19 When an audio recording is in English, the common practice is to play the recording, make a transcript available, mark the transcript as an exhibit, and use it as an aid. Our court, and many others, have approved such use of transcripts as aids to the jury, provided the court makes clear to the jury that the tape rather than the transcript constitutes the best evidence. United States v. Ademaj, 170 F.3d 58, 65 (1st Cir.1999). In ordinary circumstances, the district court does not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to use the transcripts during deliberations. Rengifo, 789 F.2d at 980. 20 Providing an English-language transcript of wiretap evidence is more than merely useful when the recorded language is not English; for Jones Act purposes, it is necessary. The language of the federal courts is English. Participants, including judges, jurors, and counsel, are entitled to understand the proceedings in English. 3 Even apart from the mandates of the Jones Act, in Puerto Rico, where Spanish is the primary language of most of the population, there are nevertheless jurors, parties, and counsel whose primary language is English. 21 Here, the submission of English transcripts was required, assuming the transcripts were translated and transcribed accurately (an issue discussed infra ). Unlike in Rivera-Rosario, where the English translation was ... cast aside and the jurors used Spanish transcripts instead, 300 F.3d at 5, the English transcripts here were made available to the jurors and used while the tapes were playing. Furthermore, in this case, counsel made no objection below to the provision of the English transcripts to the jury. 22
23 Before transcripts may be submitted to the jury even as aids, issues must be addressed both about the reliability of the transcription in the original language of the wiretaps and about the accuracy of the translation of those transcripts from the original language to English (here, from Spanish to English). Commonly, the transcripts and the English translations of those transcripts are produced by the government and copies are then given to the defendant. Sound trial management and considerations of fairness caution that the government provide these copies to defense counsel adequately in advance, so that disputes concerning the reliability of the transcription in the original language and of the English translation may be brought to the attention of the district court or resolved by agreement. Counsel, of course, may agree to the accuracy in both senses. 24 This court outlined in Rengifo the proper procedure for addressing transcription error: 25 We believe that it is advisable for the district court to try to obtain a stipulated transcript from the parties before trial or, at least, before a transcript is used. Failing such stipulation, each party should be allowed to introduce its own transcript of the recording provided that it is properly authenticated. When the jury receives two transcripts of the same recording, it should, of course, be instructed that there is a difference of opinion as to the accuracy of the transcripts and that it is up to them to decide which, if any, version to accept. The jurors should also be instructed that they can disregard any portion of the transcript (or transcripts) which they think differs from what they hear on the tape recording. Further limiting instructions will depend on the circumstances of each case. 26 789 F.2d at 983. In short, if the defendant believes the transcription of the tape is in error as to what was said, then the dispute should be brought to the attention of the court. Usually, the judge either makes a determination as to the correct transcription after listening to the tape or determines that the dispute is an issue of fact for the jury to decide. This procedure applies to transcription disputes regarding both English and non-English transcripts. 27 In the case of tapes of non-English conversations, however, there is the additional problem of potential translation error. If the parties do not agree that the English transcript submitted is correctly translated, the preferred solution is to obtain agreement from counsel as to an accurate translation. If agreement is not possible, the district court should have the parties present testimony from translators and allow the jury to decide the issue. See Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 901.09. 28 Here, because Morales-Madera did not object to the accuracy of the translation or the transcription and he makes no claim on appeal that the English transcripts before the jury were inaccurate, no issue of that type is before us. 29
30 Once translation and transcription disputes have been addressed and the transcripts have been submitted to the jury for its use, parties using audio recordings in other languages should ensure that the English transcripts become part of the record by introducing them in evidence. 4 The English transcripts should be marked and admitted in evidence in addition to the wiretaps themselves. 5 The issue of jury instructions was not raised either at trial or on appeal and has not been briefed, so it is not before us. Nonetheless, in these circumstances hereafter, an instruction that the jury should consider only what is on the tape and not what is in the English transcript would not be appropriate. 31 Parties frequently, as here, use the transcripts only as aids and fail to admit them in evidence. The usual reason given for not introducing transcripts in evidence is that the wiretap tapes themselves are the best evidence of the conversation, not the transcripts. See, e.g., United States v. Warner, 204 F.3d 799, 801 (8th Cir.2000); Fed.R.Evid. 1002 (To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required....). 32 The best evidence rule requires that the tape recordings themselves must be furnished, absent agreement to the contrary, but does not require that English translations of those tapes be excluded from evidence. Non-English recordings present unique problems of compliance with the Jones Act, which requires proceedings to be conducted in English. Accordingly, almost 20 years ago, this court approved the introduction in evidence of English transcripts for wiretaps of Spanish conversations, provided the reliability issues were worked out. Rengifo, 789 F.2d at 983. 6 The Eleventh Circuit reached the same conclusion about the admission in evidence of English transcripts of recorded conversations in Spanish in United States v. Cruz, 765 F.2d 1020, 1022-24 (11th Cir.1985), as did the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Jordan, 223 F.3d 676, 688 (7th Cir.2000). This practice of admitting reliable English transcripts in evidence is entirely consistent with the best evidence rule. The rationale behind the best evidence rule — that the [recording itself] is a more reliable, complete and accurate source of information as to its contents and meaning than anyone's description of it, Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 421, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L.Ed. 447 (1953) — is not undercut when the original recording is played to the jury and the undisputedly accurate English transcript is admitted in evidence. See United States v. Holton, 116 F.3d 1536 (D.C.Cir.1997) (concerns addressed by the best evidence rule are not at issue in this situation). 33 Here, the government concedes that it committed error in failing to enter the English transcripts in the record. 34
35 Where, as here, English transcripts are not part of the record, the issue arises of creating a sufficient record to allow judicial review under the Jones Act. This problem exists not only on appellate review but also in the district court's review of the record when deciding Rule 29 motions. 36 Here, Morales-Madera's argument focuses on the adequacy of appellate review. In simple terms, he argues that because the trial record before this court has no English translation of the many wiretaps played to the jury, this court is unable to review the record to determine if the evidence was sufficient to convict. Absent the wiretaps, he says, the remaining evidence is plainly insufficient. He argues that Rivera-Rosario compels acceptance of his position. 37 We reject Morales-Madera's argument that Rivera-Rosario controls this case. This court's opinion in Rivera-Rosario is distinguishable on several grounds. Unlike this case, Rivera-Rosario involved a situation in which the jury was deprived of having English-language transcripts at all. Rivera-Rosario involved a unique sequence of events: 38 1. the government failed to provide English transcripts in advance, thus apparently depriving the defendants of a fair opportunity to raise and resolve issues of reliability as to the 180 tapes that constituted the heart of the government's case; 39 2. there was a dispute raised by the defendants at trial about the accuracy of the English translation of the transcripts of the wiretap tapes; 40 3. that dispute was neither resolved by the trial court by obtaining agreement nor submitted to the jury for resolution; 41 4. as a consequence, and this is a key distinction, the English transcripts were never submitted to the jury at all; 42 5. this problem was not mooted by the court reporter's transcribing the taped conversations as they were played in open court 7 or by the parties agreeing on or the jury determining the correct translation; 43 6. the government then failed to comply with the procedures of Fed.R.App.P. 10(e), which allow the government to supplement the record; 44 7. thus, the Court of Appeals was placed in the position of resolving a factual dispute as to the English translation. 45 300 F.3d at 5-9. 46 We trust that this sequence of events will not recur and that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Puerto Rico will meet its obligations. 8 Because the sequence of events here differs and the jury did have English transcripts, we do not apply Rivera-Rosario's reversible-error rule that violations of the English language requirement will constitute reversible error whenever the appellant can demonstrate that the untranslated evidence has the potential to affect the disposition of an issue raised on appeal. Id. at 10. 47 Instead, we hold that because Morales-Madera did not raise his Jones Act claim in the trial court in the context of the facts of this case, our review of his claim is for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). A plain error is one that seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 732 (quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). In other words, an error is plain if a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). 48 The government has conceded that a Jones Act error occurred when it failed to introduce the English transcripts in evidence or mark those transcripts as exhibits. On appeal, the government sought to use Fed. R.App. Proc.Rule 10(e) to supplement the record with copies of the English transcripts actually used at trial. The framers of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, who anticipated a generic class of problems involving insufficiency of the record, created the following procedure in Rule 10(e): 49 If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or by accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded: 50 (A) on stipulation of the parties; 51 (B) by the district court before or after the record has been forwarded; or 52 (C) by the court of appeals. 53 At least where there is no issue of transcription or translation error and where the jurors and other participants had the English transcripts available to them during the trial, the Rule 10(e) procedures may be used to supplement the record. 54 Here, however, the government's attempt to supplement the record failed to comply with Rule 10(e). The government did not obtain a stipulation from defense counsel or submit the transcripts to the district court for certification. Instead, the government simply filed in the district court what the government said were accurate copies, with a request that they be transmitted to the court of appeals. The clerk of the district court did so within a day, without the trial court ever certifying that the copies submitted were accurate copies of the English transcripts used at trial. The defendant did not object to the trial court or to this court that these were not accurate copies of what had been used at trial, preferring to rely on his argument that the government could not supplement the record at all. 55 While the defendant may have forfeited and/or waived any objection that the submitted transcripts are not accurate copies of the transcripts before the jury, we are reluctant to review a criminal conviction based on English transcripts that may not be accurate copies of those used at trial. Accordingly, at oral argument, we asked counsel to confer and advise us whether they could agree that the transcripts submitted by the government are accurate copies of those used at trial. We were explicit that the inquiry did not include issues of transcription or translation error; those issues were forfeited at trial and waived in this court. The parties reported back to us that the transcripts are indeed the same as those used at trial. We therefore accept the transcripts as supplementing the record under Rule 10(e). We do, however, urge the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Puerto Rico to be more mindful of the requirements of Rule 10(e) in the future. 56 With the addition of these transcripts, the English-language record is sufficient for appellate review. Fifty-one of the fifty-two wiretaps have been transcribed and translated into English. One wiretap tape (Exhibit No. 4) is beyond our review because the government did not provide the jury with English transcripts of it. Relying on Rivera-Rosario, Morales-Madera argues that this tape might contain evidence that undermines confidence in the jury's verdict, even if other evidence on the record would otherwise be sufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree. In Rivera-Rosario, the court was unable to review any of the 180 tapes, 300 F.3d at 12, whereas we are able to review all but one of the 52 tapes here. Moreover, in Rivera-Rosario, the 180 tapes constituted the gravamen of the government's case, whereas there is no indication that Exhibit No. 4 carries such importance in this case. The government does not rely on Exhibit No. 4 to establish Morales-Madera's role in the conspiracy; he is not one of the conversants and there is no indication that he was even mentioned in the conversation. Agent Cases provided a summary of the contents of the tape to the jury in his testimony, and stated only that Naranjo-Rosa and Rivera-Rosario were discussing two planned shipments of 500 kilograms of cocaine and the income they would receive from those shipments. Agent Cases made no mention of Morales-Madera. Morales-Madera has given us no reason why Exhibit No. 4 is likely to subvert the evidence in all the other tapes. We find no plain error on these facts.