Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears challenge to reconstructed record and defendant’s access to counsel in Commonwealth v. Bolling
Summary
At oral argument, defense counsel argued gaps in a reconstructed trial record and a constructive denial of counsel required a new trial; the Commonwealth said the record suffices for meaningful review. The panel questioned whether missing material would likely have changed the outcome.
An appeals-court panel heard oral argument in the case identified in court as 24 P.1 807, Commonwealth v. Bolling, on whether gaps in a reconstructed trial record and the defendant’s limited ability to consult with counsel require a new trial.
The defense attorney, Nick Madison, told the panel that the reconstructed record omitted key evidence and that the defendant suffered a “constructive deprivation of counsel.” Madison said a contemporaneous electronic recording of the trial was not available and that his reconstruction — based on the defendant and trial counsel’s recollections — left “significant gaps” that make meaningful appellate review impossible. “Due to the inadequacy of the reconstructed record, as well as, a constructive deprivation of counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel, a new trial is required in this…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
