Opinion ID: 590209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Transcription Error

Text: 42 Appellant further claims that, even if the trial court was empowered to read Howard's testimony, it committed reversible error in the process of doing so. He notes that, due to a flawed transcript, the court repeated Howard's testimony as follows: 43 Question: When [defendant] was stopped, how far away was he from the bag he had dropped? 44 Answer: I would say about a foot to two feet away from him. 45 Question: How far away was he from the bag? 46 Answer: About three feet. 47 Tr. IV 487-89 (emphasis added). The correct version of Howard's testimony reads as follows: 48 Question: When [defendant] was stopped, how far away was he from the bag he had dropped? 49 Answer: I'd say I was about a foot to two feet away from it. 50 Question: How far away was he from the bag? 51 Answer: About three feet. 52 Tr. II 181 (emphasis added). Simply put, the erroneous version places appellant both one to two feet and three feet away from the drugs, while the correct account has Howard one to two feet from the bag and Davis three feet from it. 53 As appellant acknowledges, coming as it does unaccompanied by a contemporaneous objection to the District Court, we can review this mistake only under a plain error standard of review. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.). For an appellate court to overturn a conviction under this standard, the error complained of must meet at least three requirements: it must be a plain one (i.e. so obvious that the judge should have recognized it on his own); it must affect the substantial rights of parties (i.e. it cannot be merely harmless); finally, it must be one that  'seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'  United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). The reason underlying this last requisite was explained in United States v. Frady: any further extension of the plain error rule would skew the balance between [297 U.S.App.D.C. 405] our need to encourage all trial participants to seek a fair and accurate trial the first time around against our insistence that obvious injustice be promptly redressed. 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) (footnote omitted). 54 We think that the error appellant points to cannot satisfy any of these standards. To begin, as a subtle mistake in transcription--not as a major misstatement of fact or as an erroneous legal argument--the error before us hardly falls into the class of errors so plain or obvious that we can charge the District Judge with the duty of noticing it. 55 Moreover, flowing from this error we see no prejudice accruing to appellant nor any injustice affecting the integrity of our judicial system. Though the absence of a prompt objection cannot negate the possibility of prejudice, the fact that counsel heard the incorrect testimony repeated no less than three times without noticing the error must surely be some evidence of its harmlessness. Put simply: we are at a loss to understand why it would be prejudicial for a jury to hear the erroneous testimony but once when trained attorneys failed to detect the problem even after three full repetitions--two when the government, counsel, and District Judge were attempting to decide which portions of Howard's testimony should be read; the third in the presence of the jury. Tr. IV 483-85. 56 In any event, a claim of prejudice cannot be sustained without a view to the full record. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 16, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046-47, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Here, the difference between appellant standing one to two feet or three feet away from the drugs strikes us as insignificant given its context. Howard was indisputedly in close range of both the drugs and appellant. He stated that he saw appellant drop and then promptly retrieved the bag. Stewart, who saw appellant holding the bag prior to his arrest, confirmed that it was the same bag Howard had recovered. Given this setting, we cannot hold that a transcription error suggesting a difference of but a foot or two in distance works a prejudicial harm upon appellant's substantial rights.