U.S. v. Gee

• Decision Date: 06 January 1983
• Docket Number: No. 80-1811,80-1811
• Citation: 695 F.2d 1165
• Parties: 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 419 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles R. GEE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 1165

695 F.2d 1165

12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 419

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles R. GEE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-1811.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 20, 1981.

Reassigned Aug. 31, 1982.

Decided Jan. 6, 1983.

David B. Bukey, Roberts & Shefelman, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.

Stephen Cooper, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fairbanks, Alaska, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

Before SKOPIL, FLETCHER, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.

FARRIS, Circuit Judge:

Gee appeals from his conviction on one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846. He contends on appeal that the Government violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a) and the due process clause of the fifth amendment by not providing him with a transcript of a tape-recorded conversation in advance of trial. He also contends that he was prejudiced by his joint trial with two co-defendants who pled guilty after the close of all the evidence. Gee also objects to statements made by the prosecutor in closing arguments and to the use against him of co-conspirator statements which were made before the date that his participation in the conspiracy could be independently established.

FACTS

Gee was tried with two alleged co-conspirators for his role in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The two co-conspirators were charged with several substantive offenses. Gee was charged only with conspiracy. The evidence against Gee consisted of two tape-recorded conversations involving Gee, his alleged co-conspirators, and an undercover agent, Officer Kallis, and the trial testimony of Officer Kallis.

The tapes of the recorded conversations were played for defense counsel in the U.S. Attorney's office on July 31, 1980. The Government later provided copies of the tapes to defense counsel. The tapes were of poor quality. ¹ On August 11, 1980, Gee requested that the Government transcribe any of his tape-recorded statements and provide him with copies of the transcripts. On August 22 the Government responded that Gee had access to all tapes and that he had been provided with all transcripts then in existence.

On the day of trial the Government produced a transcript of a conversation that had been taped on April 25. Defense counsel objected to the jury's use of the transcript on the ground that the tape was of poor quality and the transcript had not been provided to the defense before trial even though defense counsel had made a timely request. The court deferred to a later date resolution of the questions as to when the Government transcribed the tape and whether it should have provided Gee and his counsel with a copy. The trial judge held a hearing on November 12, 1980, the day of Gee's sentencing, and concluded that the Government was not required to prepare or produce the transcript prior to trial. He denied Gee's motion for a new trial.

I.

Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Government to produce, on request of the defendant, statements made by the defendant which are in the custody of the Government ² and documents which are material to the preparation of a defense or which are intended for use by the Government as evidence in chief at trial. ³ Failure to produce such materials on request may require reversal if the defendant can show prejudice to his defense from their use at trial. See United States v. Eddy, 549 F.2d 108, 113 (9th Cir.1976).

Gee makes no claim that the Government withheld or refused to divulge the existence of evidentiary materials to be used against him at trial. Defense counsel was not only aware of the existence of the tape in question but had listened to it on several occasions and had been provided with a copy for his own use. Gee claims that the Government's original was of poor quality and that the copy the Government provided him was even worse. Conceding that the Government's original was of poor quality, Gee does not allege and we find no reason to assume that Gee was prevented or disabled from producing a transcript for his own use in the same manner in which the Government was able to produce its own transcript. Gee does not question the accuracy of the Government's transcript nor does he challenge the trial judge's clear instruction to the jury that the tape was the only evidence and that the transcript was merely to aid their understanding of that tape.

There is some question as to whether the transcript existed at the time Gee made his discovery request on August 22. The Government asserted in response to Gee's discovery motion that all transcripts then in existence had been produced. At the hearing on November 12, however, Government counsel conceded that the evidence tag attached to the tape indicated the date on which the tape had been transcribed, but that the tape and the tag had been in custody of the court and unavailable to the Government. The trial court made no clear finding as to when the transcript had been prepared but concluded that it had been done some time after July 31. ⁴

Even if we were to conclude that the trial judge's finding is clearly erroneous, there is nothing in the record to support Gee's claim that the failure of the Government to provide him with a transcript of the tape in question prejudiced his rights at trial. Gee confuses the importance of the tape with the importance of the transcript. The real harm to Gee's case came from the tape and from Officer Kallis's explanation of what was said during the gaps in the tape. Gee did not object to the admission of either. The transcript added nothing which was not audible on the tape. Considering all of the circumstances, we cannot find that Gee was prejudiced by the trial court's ruling that the jury could read the transcript while listening to the tape.

Gee claims that without the transcript he and his trial counsel were hindered in their preparation for trial, since they were unable to understand either the original tape or their copy. The record does not show that the judge or the jury had problems understanding the tape. When the jury listened to the tape a second time during its final deliberations, it did not rely upon the transcript. The trial court expressly found that "the evidence which was the tape, although it is of poor quality .... was available to defense counsel." While it may be unfortunate that Gee and his trial counsel did not listen to their copy of the tape on better equipment and earlier than the night before trial, that omission does not justify the award of a new trial. ⁵

United States v. Walker, 538 F.2d 266 (9th Cir.1976), and numerous cases from other circuits which Gee cites in his brief are inapposite. They involve the introduction of new evidence, not the production of old evidence in a different form. The trial court clearly instructed the jury that the tape, not the transcript, was the evidence. The trial court explained to the jury that "the transcript is merely for the purpose of aiding you to follow the evidence as it is given off the recording." After the tape was played, the copies of the transcript were retrieved from the jury.

Even if we found a violation of Rule 16 and some prejudice to defendant, we could find no reversible error in the trial court's decision to allow the jury to use the transcript. The trial court, when faced with a violation of Rule 16, may "order such [offending] party to permit the discovery or inspection, grant a continuance, or prohibit the party from introducing evidence not disclosed, or it may enter such order as it deems just under the circumstances." Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2). As we have said many times, "[t]he appropriate sanction for a failure to comply with a discovery rule should rest in the district judge's sound discretion." United States v. Valencia, 656 F.2d 412, 415 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 877, 102 S.Ct. 356, 70 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981). Accord, United States v. Baxter, 492 F.2d 150, 174 (9th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 940, 94 S.Ct. 1945, 40 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974). Here the record simply fails to show an abuse of discretion.

The trial court gave defense counsel ample opportunity to review the transcript before giving it to the jury. This led to lengthy discussion at the bench. The only substantial question concerned possible inaccuracies in the transcript. The trial court resolved this issue by removing the jury from the courtroom and listening to the tape with the transcript in hand. The trial court concluded that the transcript was entirely accurate, that it "picks up that which can be heard over the tape." The trial court did, however, identify certain irrelevant and prejudicial portions of the transcript. These were then deleted and the corresponding portions of the tape were not played.

We have long recognized the value of using transcripts to assist the jury in understanding difficult tape recordings. United States v. Tornabene, 687 F.2d 312 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Turner, 528 F.2d 143, 167-68 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 996, 96 S.Ct. 426, 45 L.Ed.2d 371 (1975) and 429 U.S. 837, 97 S.Ct. 105, 50 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976). The record reflects that the trial court took every precaution reasonably necessary to avoid improper use of the transcript. Given the accuracy of the transcript and its usefulness to members of the jury, complete exclusion would have been an excessive sanction of no significant benefit to the defendant. The trial court should not impose a sanction harsher than necessary to accomplish the goals of Rule 16. See generally United States v. Sarcinelli, 667 F.2d 5, 6-7 (5th Cir.1982).

The only additional relief to which Gee might have been entitled was a continuance, either immediately, before cross-examination of Officer Kallis, or before presenting his defense. But Gee did not request this relief. Nor did any of the defense counsel suggest to the court...