Opinion ID: 2788123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Record on Appeal1

Text: Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, within 14 days after filing a notice of appeal, the appellant must either order “a transcript of such parts of the proceedings not already on file as the appellant considers necessary,” or “file a certificate stating that no transcript will be ordered.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(b). Where the proceedings were not recorded or a transcript is unavailable, “the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant’s recollection.” Id. 10(c). The appellee may then serve objections or proposed amendments. Id. “The statement and any objections or proposed amendments must then 1The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 be submitted to the district court for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement must be included by the district clerk in the record on appeal.” Id. A mere absence of transcripts “does not constitute per se reversible error.” United States v. Sierra, 981 F.2d 123, 125 (3d Cir. 1992). Rather, “to be successful with an argument that because a portion of the trial transcript is missing the case ‘warrants reversal,’ [a defendant] must make ‘a specific showing of prejudice.’” United States v. Sussman, 709 F.3d 155, 163 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Sierra, supra). After protracted attempts to obtain trial transcripts (frustrated through no fault of his own, and during which time this court granted several extensions of time), Russell succeeded in obtaining only a rough transcription replete with mistakes and omissions, and could not obtain audio recordings of the trial. On April 21, 2014, Russell filed a statement of the evidence under Rule 10(c), which included the incomplete, rough transcript and set forth the record’s deficiencies. However, since then, the Government recovered audio recordings of Russell’s trial by investigating the court reporter and running a forensic examination on her laptop. The court reporting company used those recordings to create a more complete and accurate transcript, which the Government submitted with its response to Russell’s statement of the evidence. Russell concedes that the record now contains complete and accurate transcripts for two of the three days of his trial (April 9, and April 11, 2012). The court reporting company reconstructed the third day’s proceedings (April 10, 2012) in part, and Russell does not object to the portion of the April 10th proceedings for which a transcript now exists. However, the April 10th transcript is incomplete: the audio recordings did not include (and therefore the 3 transcripts do not include) complete testimony from three Government witnesses. It is to these omissions that Russell now objects.2 In its response to Russell’s statement of the evidence, the Government attempted to reconstruct the missing testimony. It stated that one of those witnesses, Philadelphia Police Officer Jeffrey Hampton, had testified (and been subject to cross examination) the day before at a pretrial hearing, and that his testimony at trial was identical to his testimony at the pretrial hearing. Russell provided no recollection to the contrary; instead he merely stated that he cannot recall the substance of Hampton’s testimony. The other two witnesses were firearms experts; the Government contended (and both parties’ closing arguments reflect) that this testimony was uncontroversial, going to the uncontested interstate commerce element of the crime, and whether the gun fit the statutory definition of a “firearm.” Again, Russell offered no specific recollection contrary to the Government’s reconstruction, nor does he point to what prejudice he suffered by any of these transcripts’ omission. The District Court adopted and approved of the Government’s Statement of the Evidence. Russell has done no more on appeal than he did before the District Court to demonstrate any prejudice he may have suffered based on these missing transcripts. Therefore, the omission of these portions of the trial transcripts was harmless. See Sussman, 709 F.3d at 163. 2 Russell filed his opening brief in this appeal before the Government filed the improved transcripts. Russell declined to file a revised brief to reflect the current state of the record despite being given an opportunity to do so. 4