United States v. Austin, No. 19-2083 (6th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

In 2017, a jury found Austin guilty of drug and gun crimes. The district court sentenced him to 255 months of imprisonment plus five years of supervised release. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. While Austin’s appeal was pending, he filed a pro se “Motion to Request Audio Recordings,” seeking permission to access the backup audio recordings for his arraignment and sentencing hearing. He believed that the certified, written transcripts were erroneous. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. When an audiotape is merely a backup to the court reporter’s stenographic record (as here), the audiotape is the personal property of the court reporter and there is no public entitlement to the audiotapes except for “arraignments, changes of plea, and sentencings filed with the clerk of court.” The court reporter must file either a transcript or an electronic recording; a litigant is not automatically entitled to both. A transcript is presumed to be a correct representation of the proceedings, 28 U.S.C. 753(b). Austin did not provide the district court with any reason to distrust the accuracy of the transcripts.

Download PDF

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 20a0100p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, > v. ROGER MAX AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 19-2083 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:15-cr-20609-1—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge. Decided and Filed: March 31, 2020 Before: COOK and THAPAR, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.* _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Sheldon N. Light, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee. Roger Austin, White Deer, Pennsylvania, pro se. _________________ OPINION _________________ PER CURIAM. Roger Max Austin, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to request audio recordings of his arraignment and sentencing hearings. But Austin received the transcripts of those proceedings and has no right to the audio recordings. Thus, we affirm. * The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. No. 19-2083 United States v. Austin Page 2 In 2017, a jury found Austin guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm; using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during a drug-trafficking crime; and conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. The district court sentenced him to a total of 255 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release. We recently affirmed his convictions and sentence. United States v. Austin, No. 18-2040, 2019 WL 6954342 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2019). While Austin’s direct appeal was pending, he filed a “Motion to Request Audio Recordings” in which he sought permission to access the backup audio recordings for his arraignment and sentencing hearing. He believed that the certified, written transcripts were in some way erroneous, and he desired to compare them to the audio recordings. The district court denied the motion. He now asserts the same claim on appeal, and we review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Quinn, 230 F.3d 862, 866 (6th Cir. 2000); see United States v. Bartle, 835 F.2d 646, 650 (6th Cir. 1987). Litigants and the public alike have a right to access the records of a judicial proceeding. See, e.g., Smith v. U.S. Dist. Court Officers, 203 F.3d 440, 441 (7th Cir. 2000); United States v. Davis, 648 F. App’x 295, 297 (4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). One such record is the transcript of proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). An audiotape recording can also qualify when it is the only record made of a proceeding. See Smith, 203 F.3d at 441. But when an audiotape is merely a backup to the court reporter’s stenographic record (as here), the audiotape is the personal property of the court reporter and there is no public entitlement to the audiotapes except for “arraignments, changes of plea, and sentencings filed with the clerk of court.” 6 Guide to Judiciary Policy § 510.40.10(c)(2) (emphasis added); see In re Pratt, 511 F.3d 483, 485 n.2 (5th Cir. 2007); Smith, 203 F.3d at 442. In other words, the court reporter must file either a transcript or an electronic recording. 6 Guide to Judiciary Policy § 290.20.20(c)(1). A litigant is not automatically entitled to both. That is because a transcript is presumed to be a correct representation of the proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). When a transcript is certified by the court reporter, it is “deemed prima facie a correct statement of the testimony taken and proceedings had.” Id. No. 19-2083 United States v. Austin Page 3 To the extent that a litigant can overcome this “prima facie” presumption, Austin has not done so here. Id. After all, the district court found that the stenographic transcripts filed in his case had been properly certified by the court reporter, and it found no reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcripts. And since Austin did not provide the district court with any reason to distrust the accuracy of the transcripts, his new arguments on that point are not properly before this court. See United States v. Kennedy, 714 F.3d 951, 959 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557, 560–61 (6th Cir. 2006) (noting that a forfeited argument cannot be considered on appeal if it requires “further development of the record at the district court level”). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Primary Holding

A defendant, having received a certified, written transcript of his arraignment and sentencing hearing, is not entitled to audio recordings of those proceedings.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.