Reconstruction Hearing as Adequate Record for Appellate Review: People v. Meyers

Introduction

People v. Meyers (2025 NYSlipOp 01762) is a decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Joseph A. Meyers was convicted of first-degree arson, second-degree murder and first-degree murder stemming from a fire at a home insured by his wife and the death of a life‐insurance beneficiary. His appeal was initially frustrated by missing and defective transcripts of jury selection, opening statements, summations, final charge, jury notes and verdict. Rather than summarily reverse, the Court remitted the case to Steuben County Court for a reconstruction hearing to restore an adequate appellate record. After reconstruction, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that due process was satisfied and that summary reversal is warranted only when reconstruction is impossible.

Summary of the Judgment

1. On initial appeal, the Fourth Department recognized that the trial record was “deplorable,” missing several days of transcript and showing irregular notations (“omitted,” “untranscribable,” “blah, blah,” etc.).

2. Rather than grant an automatic new trial, the Court applied established precedent requiring a defendant to show that alternative means of reconstructing the record were unavailable.

3. County Court held a reconstruction hearing. Witnesses included the trial judge, his law clerk, the trial prosecutor, defense counsel, the court clerk and the county clerk. The judge’s personal notes, voir dire sheets, minutes, exhibit and witness lists, and prosecutor’s notes were admitted.

4. The Appellate Division held that:

The reconstruction hearing complied with due process.
The People bore no active fault in the loss of transcripts.
Defendant failed to show that reconstruction was impossible or that genuine appellate issues remained hidden.
Defendant’s remaining substantive claims (suppression, adjournment, counsel at sentencing, weight and sufficiency of evidence, expert-witness intimidation) lacked merit or were unpreserved.

Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

People v. Yavru-Sakuk, 98 NY2d 56 (2002) – fundamental right to appellate review.
People v. Harrison, 85 NY2d 794 (1995) – presumption of regularity despite missing transcript.
People v. Glass, 43 NY2d 283 (1977) – alternative methods can satisfy appellate record needs.
People v. Rivera, 39 NY2d 519 (1976) – appeal fairness does not guarantee a perfect record.
People v. Parris, 4 NY3d 41 (2004) – parties must be diligent in reconstruction efforts.
People v. Bethune, 29 NY3d 539 (2017) – courts may hold reconstruction hearings.
People v. Alomar, 93 NY2d 239 (1999) – notes and recollections can rebuild missing parts.
People v. Velasquez, 1 NY3d 44 (2003) – reconstruction proper when transcript errors exist.
People v. Ragbirsingh, 153 AD3d 858 (2d Dept 2017) – exhibit lists and recollections aid reconstruction.
People v. Zuniga, 149 AD3d 660 (1st Dept 2017) – counsel memory admissible in reconstruction.
People v. Kinder, 126 AD2d 60 (4th Dept 1987) – attorney recollection is permissible.
People v. Cooke, 292 NY 185 (1944) – witness exclusion rules in reconstruction hearings.
People v. Chappell, 198 AD3d 1018 (3d Dept 2021) – court’s reconstruction procedures examined.

Legal Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed that:

There is a presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings, even if transcripts are lost or defective, unless the People are at fault.
A defendant’s right to appeal is not frustrated simply because the transcript is unavailable; instead, the record may be reconstructed by alternative means.
When substantial transcript errors or omissions occur, a court may hold a reconstruction hearing where the trial judge, counsel, clerks and documentary evidence (judge’s notes, voir dire sheets, minutes, exhibits list, etc.) testify or are admitted.
The burden on the defendant to obtain summary reversal is to show that reconstruction is impossible, not simply burdensome. Summary reversal and a new trial are rare remedies, appropriate only when an adequate record cannot be reconstructed “because of lapse of time, unavailability of participants or similar circumstances.”
The People are not absolved of responsibility to be diligent in the reconstruction hearing; they must produce exhibits and documentary evidence within their control. However, minor procedural choices (e.g., exclusion of non-testifying witnesses) do not automatically deprive due process.

Impact

People v. Meyers clarifies and reinforces the framework for handling lost or defective trial transcripts in criminal appeals in New York:

County courts and Appellate Divisions must adhere to the presumption of regularity and allow reconstruction hearings before ordering new trials.
Defendants seeking summary reversal must demonstrate that no adequate alternative record can be made.
Reconstruction hearings should be tailored: courts should identify missing portions, ensure access to trial exhibits and documentary records, and allow key participants (judge, counsel, clerks, prosecutor) to testify or submit notes.
This decision guides lower courts on balancing a defendant’s right to appellate review against the practicalities of preserving and reconstructing trial records.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Presumption of Regularity: Courts start with the assumption that trials are properly conducted. Missing transcripts do not automatically overturn convictions.

Reconstruction Hearing: A special proceeding where the judge, attorneys, clerks and other participants reconstruct missing or garbled parts of the trial record using notes, documents and recollections.

Summary Reversal: An automatic overturning of a conviction without full consideration on the merits—allowed only when an adequate record cannot be reconstructed.

Burden of Proof in Reconstruction Context: Though the People prosecute at trial, the defendant must show at the appellate level that reconstruction is impossible to secure a summary reversal. If reconstruction succeeds, the appeal proceeds on the merits.

Conclusion

People v. Meyers confirms that the right to appellate review in New York is not defeated by lost or defective transcripts so long as a replacement record can be fashioned by reasonable means. Reconstruction hearings—drawing on judge’s notes, counsel recollection and court records—are the preferred remedy. Summary reversal and a new trial remain exceptional, reserved for situations where no adequate record can be reconstructed. This decision provides practical guidance to trial and appellate courts on preserving defendants’ appellate rights while maintaining the integrity and finality of criminal judgments.