Opinion ID: 8704059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged Fabrication of Official Transcripts

Text: Defendant also makes several arguments regarding false trial transcripts and hearing transcripts, and argues that the prosecution and the Court conspired to cover up evidence of their wrongdoing by omitting or altering testimony that was favorable to the defendant. 7 Even if plaintiffs allegation of fabrication were to be true, however, it would be wholly irrelevant to plaintiffs claim for a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. The jury’s verdict was based on the live testimony at trial and not the written transcript. The jury would not have known that the allegedly false testimony they heard in court was transcribed incorrectly. Likewise, plaintiffs challenge to the November 6, 2008 transcript of Frank Smith’s testimony would also fail because the Court issued an oral ruling at the close of the hearing that day, prior to the issuance of the transcript. In any event, defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing that the transcripts are incorrect. “The transcript ... shall be deemed prima facie a correct statement of the testimony taken and the proceedings had.” 28 U.S.C. § 753. Unsubstantiated assertions that the record is wrong are not sufficient to overcome this statutory presumption. See Veillon v. Exploration Servs., 876 F.2d 1197, 1201 (5th Cir.1989); United States v. Riggs, No. 10-cr-02, 2012 WL 10287, at  (W.D.Va. Jan. 3, 2012). Other than conclusory statements regarding the omission of favorable testimony, plaintiff has failed to overcome the statutory presumption. Moreover, the Court finds that with respect to the December 10, 2007 trial testimony, the context of the testimony strongly suggests that defendant did indeed say that it was his “first time in court.” See Dec. 10, 2007 Tr. at 135-36. The Court is further persuaded by the government’s own representation that the transcripts for both the December 10, 2007 trial date and the November 6, 2008 hearing accurately reflect the testimony taken on those days. See ECF No. 166 at 5. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to alter the transcripts is denied. To the extent not expressly discussed herein, defendant’s other claims of prosecutorial misconduct, including that “federal agents bribed Frank Smith and later Chris Cook and prepared false reports,” ECF No. 144 at 6, are hereby deemed insufficient to warrant a new trial. 8 Furthermore, defendant’s claim that the Court gave an improper jury instruction, ECF No. 144 at 4, is not properly raised in a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on “newly-discovered evidence.”