Opinion ID: 200736
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Adequacy of English Language Record for Judicial Review

Text: 35 Where, as here, English transcripts are not part of the record, the issue arises of creating a sufficient record to allow judicial review under the Jones Act. This problem exists not only on appellate review but also in the district court's review of the record when deciding Rule 29 motions. 36 Here, Morales-Madera's argument focuses on the adequacy of appellate review. In simple terms, he argues that because the trial record before this court has no English translation of the many wiretaps played to the jury, this court is unable to review the record to determine if the evidence was sufficient to convict. Absent the wiretaps, he says, the remaining evidence is plainly insufficient. He argues that Rivera-Rosario compels acceptance of his position. 37 We reject Morales-Madera's argument that Rivera-Rosario controls this case. This court's opinion in Rivera-Rosario is distinguishable on several grounds. Unlike this case, Rivera-Rosario involved a situation in which the jury was deprived of having English-language transcripts at all. Rivera-Rosario involved a unique sequence of events: 38 1. the government failed to provide English transcripts in advance, thus apparently depriving the defendants of a fair opportunity to raise and resolve issues of reliability as to the 180 tapes that constituted the heart of the government's case; 39 2. there was a dispute raised by the defendants at trial about the accuracy of the English translation of the transcripts of the wiretap tapes; 40 3. that dispute was neither resolved by the trial court by obtaining agreement nor submitted to the jury for resolution; 41 4. as a consequence, and this is a key distinction, the English transcripts were never submitted to the jury at all; 42 5. this problem was not mooted by the court reporter's transcribing the taped conversations as they were played in open court 7 or by the parties agreeing on or the jury determining the correct translation; 43 6. the government then failed to comply with the procedures of Fed.R.App.P. 10(e), which allow the government to supplement the record; 44 7. thus, the Court of Appeals was placed in the position of resolving a factual dispute as to the English translation. 45 300 F.3d at 5-9. 46 We trust that this sequence of events will not recur and that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Puerto Rico will meet its obligations. 8 Because the sequence of events here differs and the jury did have English transcripts, we do not apply Rivera-Rosario's reversible-error rule that violations of the English language requirement will constitute reversible error whenever the appellant can demonstrate that the untranslated evidence has the potential to affect the disposition of an issue raised on appeal. Id. at 10. 47 Instead, we hold that because Morales-Madera did not raise his Jones Act claim in the trial court in the context of the facts of this case, our review of his claim is for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). A plain error is one that seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 732 (quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted). In other words, an error is plain if a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). 48 The government has conceded that a Jones Act error occurred when it failed to introduce the English transcripts in evidence or mark those transcripts as exhibits. On appeal, the government sought to use Fed. R.App. Proc.Rule 10(e) to supplement the record with copies of the English transcripts actually used at trial. The framers of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, who anticipated a generic class of problems involving insufficiency of the record, created the following procedure in Rule 10(e): 49 If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or by accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded: 50 (A) on stipulation of the parties; 51 (B) by the district court before or after the record has been forwarded; or 52 (C) by the court of appeals. 53 At least where there is no issue of transcription or translation error and where the jurors and other participants had the English transcripts available to them during the trial, the Rule 10(e) procedures may be used to supplement the record. 54 Here, however, the government's attempt to supplement the record failed to comply with Rule 10(e). The government did not obtain a stipulation from defense counsel or submit the transcripts to the district court for certification. Instead, the government simply filed in the district court what the government said were accurate copies, with a request that they be transmitted to the court of appeals. The clerk of the district court did so within a day, without the trial court ever certifying that the copies submitted were accurate copies of the English transcripts used at trial. The defendant did not object to the trial court or to this court that these were not accurate copies of what had been used at trial, preferring to rely on his argument that the government could not supplement the record at all. 55 While the defendant may have forfeited and/or waived any objection that the submitted transcripts are not accurate copies of the transcripts before the jury, we are reluctant to review a criminal conviction based on English transcripts that may not be accurate copies of those used at trial. Accordingly, at oral argument, we asked counsel to confer and advise us whether they could agree that the transcripts submitted by the government are accurate copies of those used at trial. We were explicit that the inquiry did not include issues of transcription or translation error; those issues were forfeited at trial and waived in this court. The parties reported back to us that the transcripts are indeed the same as those used at trial. We therefore accept the transcripts as supplementing the record under Rule 10(e). We do, however, urge the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Puerto Rico to be more mindful of the requirements of Rule 10(e) in the future. 56 With the addition of these transcripts, the English-language record is sufficient for appellate review. Fifty-one of the fifty-two wiretaps have been transcribed and translated into English. One wiretap tape (Exhibit No. 4) is beyond our review because the government did not provide the jury with English transcripts of it. Relying on Rivera-Rosario, Morales-Madera argues that this tape might contain evidence that undermines confidence in the jury's verdict, even if other evidence on the record would otherwise be sufficient to sustain his conviction. We disagree. In Rivera-Rosario, the court was unable to review any of the 180 tapes, 300 F.3d at 12, whereas we are able to review all but one of the 52 tapes here. Moreover, in Rivera-Rosario, the 180 tapes constituted the gravamen of the government's case, whereas there is no indication that Exhibit No. 4 carries such importance in this case. The government does not rely on Exhibit No. 4 to establish Morales-Madera's role in the conspiracy; he is not one of the conversants and there is no indication that he was even mentioned in the conversation. Agent Cases provided a summary of the contents of the tape to the jury in his testimony, and stated only that Naranjo-Rosa and Rivera-Rosario were discussing two planned shipments of 500 kilograms of cocaine and the income they would receive from those shipments. Agent Cases made no mention of Morales-Madera. Morales-Madera has given us no reason why Exhibit No. 4 is likely to subvert the evidence in all the other tapes. We find no plain error on these facts.