California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gaston, 143 Cal.Rptr. 205, 20 Cal.3d 476, 573 P.2d 423 (Cal. 1978):
In accordance with the general tenor of rules 12(a) and 33(a)(2) and People v. Hill, supra, I respectfully suggest that before augmentation of the record is granted, it is not unreasonable to require that the moving party set forth some facts indicating a reasonable possibility that error will be revealed in the augmented record. It is not too much to require that a defendant designate, in at least summary fashion, what he expects to find and something of what he knows, remembers, or suspects the requested record may reveal by way of error. Such a standard does not necessarily require that defendant articulate specific facts which will be found in the requested transcript, but rather does require something more substantial than the merest speculation. While this test would not be amenable to mechanical application, its augmentation would rest in the sound judgment and discretion of the appellate courts, which it seems to me is clearly contemplated by present rule 12(a) providing that "the reviewing court, on such terms as it deems proper, may order that . . . portions of the oral proceedings be transcribed . . . and transmitted . . .." (Italics added.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.