Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Record Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellee flags inconsistencies in technical record and exhibit timestamps
Summary
Appellee counsel told the appellate panel that the technical record lists five exhibits despite trial transcripts noting no exhibits were entered; counsel questioned inconsistent file stamps and notarization dates, urging the court to disregard exhibits it did not consider.
COURT OF APPEALS — At the May 13, 2024 argument in the appeal of the dismissal of an indictment, Kendall Jones, counsel for appellee Mr. Mason, urged the panel to treat certain exhibits in the technical record with skepticism, saying their inclusion and timestamps raise questions about the accuracy of the record before the court.
Jones told the panel that three trial transcripts state explicitly that the State entered no exhibits during the three trial settings, yet the technical record contains a separate exhibits volume listing five items, including hospital photographs and medical records. He pointed to apparent inconsistencies: file stamps that predate notarization and invoices dated after circuit-court file stamps. "The time stamps that are on them bring serious question as to when these actually were filed with the court," Jones said.
Jones asked the court not to consider documents that were not actually tendered to the trial court or adjudicated by the trial judge. He said if items were merely filed without ever being addressed by the trial judge, they should not be treated as part of what transpired in the trial court for appellate review.
Courtney Orr, for the State, replied that the questioned items appear to be exhibits attached to pleadings — notably a Rule 12 notice of intent to introduce evidence and a post-dismissal motion to reconsider — and that TRAP 24 and the rules on record composition require inclusion of pleadings and exhibits filed with the trial court. Orr conceded that any discrepancy in notarization and file-stamp dates could affect the weight or admissibility of evidence at trial, but she said those questions go to credibility and not to inclusion in the technical record for appellate review.
The panel pressed both sides on whether the exhibits were ever tendered or considered by the trial judge and on what the record shows the State did between Jan. 22 and May 13, 2024 to locate the witness. Counsel left those factual items for further development in the appellate briefing and argument.
The hearing recessed for the afternoon with the record-integrity concern noted for the court's consideration.
