Opinion ID: 790576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Specific Prejudice Requirement

Text: 8 We first consider whether, in order to merit relief, an appellant must allege specific prejudice to his right to appeal resulting from gaps in the record on appeal. In two previous cases, we required a showing of prejudice by the appellant before relief based on missing documents in the record could be granted. In United States v. Di Canio, 245 F.2d 713, 715 (2d Cir.1957), in which the court stenographer died before he was able to transcribe his notes, we held that [t]he absence of a completely accurate transcript does not, without more, invalidate a conviction, and that a new trial would only be necessary if the defects of the record [were] of a prejudicial character. See also United States v. Smart, 448 F.2d 931, 936 (2d Cir.1971) ([Appellant] failed to show any prejudice to his right to appeal resulting from the missing documents. (emphasis added)). 9 A prejudice requirement has now been adopted by almost every circuit to consider the issue in the context of missing or inaccurate trial transcripts. 2 In the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, relief is accorded an appellant only when a gap in the record specifically prejudices his ability to perfect an appeal. United States v. Huggins, 191 F.3d 532, 534, 537 (4th Cir.1999); accord United States v. Haber, 251 F.3d 881, 890 (10th Cir.2001); United States v. Kelly, 167 F.3d 436, 438 (8th Cir.1999); United States v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560, 563 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Sierra, 981 F.2d 123, 126 (3d Cir.1992); United States v. Antoine, 906 F.2d 1379, 1381 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1530-31 (6th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Todd, 287 F.3d 1160, 1164 (D.C.Cir.2002) (weighing against other factors defendant's ability to allege specific prejudice, although not requiring a prejudice showing). Only the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have taken a different approach, and then only when the defendant is represented by new counsel on appeal. In that circumstance, those courts grant the defendant relief whenever a substantial and significant portion of the record is missing. United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303, 1306 (5th Cir.1977); see also United States v. Preciado-Cordobas, 981 F.2d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir.1993) (same). This minority rule, however, may have undesirable consequences, since it creates the perverse incentive [for] defendants to dismiss trial counsel and seek new appellate counsel whenever questions arise over the sufficiency of the trial transcript. Huggins, 191 F.3d at 537. 10 A prejudice requirement, by contrast, makes sense: Where gaps in the record on appeal bear no relation to a litigant's ability to prosecute his appeal, relief is not warranted. We thus follow and reaffirm our holdings in Smart and Di Canio, and require an appellant to show specific prejudice to his ability to perfect an appeal, regardless of whether he is represented by new counsel on appeal, before we will grant relief based on gaps in the record.