Evidence; Whether the pro se federal prisoner was entitled to receive a copy of the backup audio recordings of his arraignment & sentencing hearings when he had already received the written transcripts; United States v. Quinn; United States v. Bartle; Smith v. U.S. Dist. Court Officers (7th Cir.); United States v. Davis (4th Cir.); 28 USC § 753(b); 6 Guide to Judiciary Policy §§ 290.20.20(c)(1) & 510.40.10(c)(2); In re Pratt (5th Cir.)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court affirmed the district court, holding that because defendant-pro se federal prisoner (Austin) had already received written transcripts of his arraignment and sentencing hearings, he was not entitled to the backup audio recordings of these proceedings. The court held that Austin would have been entitled to an audio copy if “it is the only record made of a proceeding.” It noted that audio recordings are “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.’ . . . [T]he reporter must file either a transcript or an electronic recording. . . . A litigant is not automatically entitled to both.” Moreover, a certified transcript is presumed to be a prima facie statement of the testimony and proceedings.