Opinion ID: 199997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Missing Portion of the Hearing Transcript

Text: 30 Smith argues that the missing transcript has prejudiced his ability to perfect his appeal, thus warranting reversal of his conviction and a new trial. The Court Reporter Act, 28 U.S.C. § 753(b), provides that all open court proceedings in criminal cases shall be recorded verbatim. 5 Although § 753(b) is mandatory, United States v. Andiarena, 823 F.2d 673, 676 (1st Cir.1987), nothing prescribes automatic reversal of a defendant's convictions for non-compliance with that statutory provision. United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560, 563 (1st Cir.1996); see United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1530 (6th Cir.1985) (A violation of the recording mandate, however, is not per se error, and thus without more does not require reversal.). Rather, to obtain reversal and a new trial, the defendant must demonstrate specific prejudice to his ability to perfect an appeal, beyond mere non-compliance with the [Court Reporter Act]. 6 Brand, 80 F.3d at 563 (citing extra-circuit precedent). 7 31 According to Smith, the missing portion of the transcript contained both defense counsel's argument to exclude the contested evidence and the basis for the court's ruling on its admissibility. Thus, he contends that the missing transcript hampers his ability to argue that the district court failed to perform the requisite second step of the Rule 404(b) analysis, namely, balancing the probative value of the drug dealing evidence against its potential prejudicial effect pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 403, see United States v. Van Horn, 277 F.3d 48, 57 (1st Cir.2002), and that we cannot meaningfully review the district court's decision to admit some of the drug dealing evidence under Rule 404(b). We disagree. 32 We know from the record that the district court did consider the prejudicial effect of the drug dealing evidence on a jury in a gun possession case and excluded certain evidence on that basis. For instance, the court specifically excluded evidence of Smith's drug dealing from the Wales Street apartment going back more than ten days before the gun was found on grounds that it was too prejudicial. Moreover, the district court invited Smith to submit a limiting instruction on the Rule 404(b) evidence. The invitation to a defendant to submit or request a limiting instruction suggests that [the district court] had come to the conclusion that the danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. United States v. Rosa, 705 F.2d 1375, 1378 (1st Cir.1983)(per curiam). Although defense counsel failed to do so, the court gave its own such instruction twice — once in the midst of trial and again as part of the jury charge. 33 Furthermore, there is no necessary relationship between the absence from the record of an explanation for a Rule 403 balancing ruling and our ability to conduct a meaningful appellate review of such a ruling. See United States v. Santagata, 924 F.2d 391, 394 (1st Cir.1991) (noting that on-the-record findings as to the probative value/prejudicial effect balance ... are not always necessary). As Smith concedes, where the record is silent, we have on prior occasions assumed that the district court tacitly performed Rule 403 balancing, or we have independently engaged in that analysis without resort to the district court's decision. See, e.g., United States v. De La Cruz, 902 F.2d 121, 123 n. 1 (1st Cir.1990) (Despite the lack of express findings, we believe that the record reflects the district court's awareness of its responsibility to weigh the relevant factors and perform a balancing test prior to allowing the government to use the disputed evidence.); United States v. Foley, 871 F.2d 235, 238 (1st Cir.1989)(no abuse of discretion found in exclusion of evidence despite absence of express findings); United States v. Flores Perez, 849 F.2d 1, 4 n. 2 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Currier, 821 F.2d 52, 54 n. 3 (1st Cir.1987) (noting that trial court's failure to elaborate on the reason for deciding to admit the evidence ... did not in these circumstances imply that it was ignoring the proper factors under Rule 403 (internal quotation marks omitted)). 34 Finally, we recognize that an adequate record is of particular importance when new counsel is retained on appeal. However, the mere fact that Smith has retained new counsel for his appeal does not by itself warrant reversal nor in any way relieve Smith of his burden to demonstrate specific prejudice. See Brand, 80 F.3d at 563 (requiring same showing of specific prejudice, whether or not there is new appellate counsel). To hold otherwise would create[] the perverse incentive of encouraging defendants to dismiss trial counsel and seek new appellate counsel whenever questions arise over the sufficiency of a trial transcript. United States v. Huggins, 191 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir.1999). Accord Sierra, 981 F.2d at 126. There has been no showing that the missing portion of the hearing transcript prejudices Smith's ability to challenge the admission of the drug dealing evidence under Rule 404(b). We turn, therefore, to the merits of that Rule 404(b) challenge. 35