Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

289 F.2d 308

Docket No. 18019.

Stephens v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided April 18, 1961.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1961-04-18

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Since the failure of the court reporter to observe the terms of the statute is undisputed and the result is that a- full transcript is not available to • us, we do not see how we can, under Rule 52(a), F.R.Cr.P., 18 U.S.C.A., adjudicate that there was no showing that any errors which might have been reflected by the transcript were harmless. This conclusion seems to be in line with whatever jurisprudence is available on the subject.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Moore v. State, 42 Ala. App. 392 - Bland v. State

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 753

Relies on Bruno v. United States · Poole v. United States · Stansbury v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Benjamin Franklin Cameron · Decided 1961-04-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably United States v. Selva (1977), Strauss v. United States (1963)

45 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

3701961197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*309William F. Walsh, Houston, Tex., for appellant.

¶2Paul N. Brown, U. S. Atty., Tyler, Tex., for appellee.

¶3Before CAMERON and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and HANNAY, District Judge.

¶4CAMERON, Circuit Judge.

¶5The question presented by this appeal is whether the court below committed reversible error when it failed to require the court reporter to record certain proceedings had in open court, mainly, the examination of the veniremen and the arguments of counsel to the jury. Other points were raised, but we do not apprehend that they would recur in a further trial and our answer to the question stated will dispose of the case.

¶6Appellant Stephens was convicted of transporting one Patricia Ann Herring from Beaumont, Texas to New Iberia, Louisiana for the purpose of prostitution and debauchery in violation of the Mann Act, Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421. His court-appointed attorney insists that he is entitled to a transcript of all of the proceedings which took place in the court below in order that he may properly present certain specified errors to this Court. We think that this is true under the Court Reporter Act, 28 U.S. C.A. § 753(b). 1

¶7The Act is mandatory in its requirements, and it has been held that its very purpose was to satisfy “the long-felt need for a verbatim record of all court proceedings, particularly in criminal cases … ”2

¶8Since the failure of the court reporter to observe the terms of the statute is undisputed and the result is that a full transcript is not available to us, we do not see how we can, under Rule 52(a), F.R. Cr.P., 18 U.S.C.A., adjudicate that there was no showing that any errors which might have been reflected by the transcript were harmless. This conclusion seems to be in line with whatever jurisprudence is available on the subject.3

¶9The judgment appealed from is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

¶10Reversed and remanded.

/289/f2d/308 · .json · Public domain