Opinion ID: 1919235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Requests for Transcript of the Hearing

Text: ¶ 18. The October 14, 2003, hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Record Complete followed over a year and a half of exchanges among counsel and the Circuit Clerk's office regarding the missing items and the appeal record. When plaintiff's counsel noticed the motion for hearing, Robinson sent an October 8, 2003, letter to the Hinds County Court Administrator, requesting a court reporter for the hearing. ¶ 19. On October 14, 2003 (the day of the hearing) Melissa M. McCarty, a para-legal with Robinson, sent another letter to the Court Administrator, confirming a voice mail in which Robinson confirmed that he wished to obtain a copy of the transcript of the hearing. ¶ 20. On November 3, 2003, Robinson sent a letter to the Court Administrator, requesting the transcript. ¶ 21. On December 15, 2003, McCarty wrote the Court Reporter and complained of numerous unreturned messages left with her concerning the transcript. The letter also confirmed a conversation which took place on November 28, 2003, in which the reporter stated that another 10 to 14 days would be required. This letter again requested the transcript. [10] ¶ 22. On December 29, 2003, when Robinson filed the Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking recusal of Judge Green, he still did not have the transcript of the October 14, 2003, hearing. Robinson states in his motion: At the start of this hearing, Judge Green asked the undersigned why he wished a court reporter to transcribe the proceeding. The undersigned advised Judge Green he wished to maintain a record of the proceeding. Defendants and the undersigned have, on multiple occasions, requested from the Court a copy of the transcript of the October 14, 2003 hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Record Complete, but have yet to receive the same. ¶ 23. Upon receiving the motion, this Court issued an order to show cause why the transcript had not been provided to Robinson. The court reporter then transcribed the hearing on March 30, 2004, almost six months after the hearing. Judge Green and the court reporter jointly responded to the show-cause order, blaming the failure to produce the transcript on the style of the show-cause order. Judge Green also stated in her response that there may have been miscommunication between the petitioners and the court reporters, and that she was bewildered that the Petitioners would claim to have repeatedly requested the transcript. . . . There has been no refusal to produce the transcript. Had the Petitioner brought the oversight to the court's attention, then it could have been handled promptly. . . . ¶ 24. At the time she filed her response to the show-cause order, Judge Green had in her possession for three months a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus (including Exhibit 4 which contained the letters requesting the transcript). Thus, giving Judge Green the benefit of the doubt concerning Robinson's prior requests, she certainly was fully aware of the request for the transcript after reading Robinson's petition. Yet, nothing was done for months, and until this Court issued the show cause order. Thus, it is Judge Green's bewilderment that is bewildering. The transcript should have been provided within a reasonable time after it was requested. It wasn't. Robinson persuasively argues that the failure to provide the requested transcript is yet another indication of Judge Green's animosity toward him.