Opinion ID: 2973801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transcript Of Wire Recordings

Text: The defendant challenges the jury’s use of a transcript of the wire recordings as a listening aid during trial. Defendant Ford objected to the jury’s use of the transcript. The Government says the district court properly permitted the use of the transcript, and we agree. Defendant Ford did not stipulate to the accuracy of the transcript. Under this circumstance, “‘the transcriber should verify that he or she has listened to the tape and accurately transcribed its content. The [district] court should also make an independent determination of accuracy by reading the transcript against the tape.’” United States v. Jacob, 377 F.3d 573, 581 (6th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The district court followed those procedures. Officer -6- No. 05-3312 United States v. Ford Matheson testified that he and Agent Chard prepared the transcript, and that the transcript was accurate. [J.A. at 132].2 The district court confirmed that it listened to the tapes and compared them to the transcript. But for “a couple of typos,” the district court found the transcript to be accurate. [J.A. at 82]. The defendant points to the district court’s reference to “typos” and Taylor’s statement that the transcript was “worded wrong” in two instances. Even so, a “defendant challenging the use of a transcript at trial must show prejudice.” Jacob, 377 F.3d at 581. Defendant Ford does not demonstrate that any of the inaccuracies prejudiced him. Taylor and Officer Matheson were available for cross-examination regarding the transcribed communications. The district court also remedied any inaccuracies in the transcript by instructing the jury: “[A]ny differences that you detect, if any, between the transcripts and what you believe that you hear, you should trust your own senses. And keep in mind Special Agent Chard and Officer Matheson did assist in the preparation of the transcripts.” [J.A. at 110]. See United States v. Elder, 90 F.3d 1110, 1130 (6th Cir. 1996) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing transcripts to be used as aids to the jury when listening to tape recorded conversations in light of his limiting instructions.”). 2 Q. Who prepared it? A. Special Agent Chard and myself. Q. Have you had an opportunity to compare the audiotape to the transcript? A. Yes I have. Q. Is it your conclusion that it’s accurate? A. Yes it is. [J.A. at 132] -7- No. 05-3312 United States v. Ford The defendant also challenges the transcript on the ground that it identified him as one of the speakers in the recorded conversations. Taylor and Officer Matheson both testified regarding their knowledge that Ford was, in fact, one of the speakers. Their availability for cross-examination negates any prejudice to Ford. See United States v. Crane, 632 F.2d 663, 664-65 (6th Cir. 1980). The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the jury to use the transcript as a listening aid.