Court of Appeals affirms convictions despite tainted transcript

New York state’s highest court has affirmed all charges in a fatal arson case despite a flawed transcript of the trial.

On Feb. 15, 2016, a fire engulfed the home of David O’Dell, who was found dead inside.

O’Dell’s neighbors, Joseph A. Meyers and his wife, Iryn, were suspected of causing the fire. Iryn had purchased an interest in O’Dell’s home two months earlier and was living in the basement. She also purchased a life insurance policy on O’Dell shortly before the fire.

Video footage from the Meyers’ home, and location data from their cell phones, showed them traveling to and from O’Dell’s home multiple times on the night of the fire.

Joseph also made inconsistent statements to police and fire investigators.

Josep and Iryn Meyers were indicted on multiple charges of murder, arson, and fraud.

After a jury trial, Joseph was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, first-degree arson, first-degree falsifying business records, attempted second-degree insurance fraud, and fourth-degree conspiracy.

He was sentenced to 23 years to life.

During his trial, the primary stenographer failed to capture substantial portions of the proceedings and frequently recorded “blah blah blah,” “omitted,” “untranscribable,” or undecipherable characters instead of the words actually spoken, according to the decision from the Court of Appeals.

The transcript problems were discovered when an appeal was being prepared.

The Appellate Division ordered a reconstruction hearing, where a Supreme Court justice took testimony from the trial judge who heard the case, the attorneys who tried it, and court clerks, and also supplemented the record with the extensive notes the judge took during the trial.

The justice who held the four-day reconstruction hearing, appointed the Livingston County District Attorney as special prosecutor because Meyers’s trial lawyer had started working in the DA’s office, and Meyers was represented by a new attorney.

The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions based on the original trial record, supplemented by the reconstruction hearing.

“Although the transcript prepared by the court reporter at trial is utterly inexcusable, we affirm the Appellate Division’s holding that, on the unique facts of this case, the results of the reconstruction hearing were sufficient to protect Mr. Meyers’s right to an appeal,” Chief Judge Rowan D. Wilson wrote.

“To obtain summary reversal based on a record defect, a defendant bears the burden to establish that a reconstruction hearing would be futile. That is, a defendant must demonstrate that alternative methods to provide an adequate record will not avail to satisfactorily demonstrate whether genuine appealable and reviewable issues do or do not exist,” Wilson wrote.

“Mr. Meyers failed to establish that a reconstruction hearing would have been futile,” he wrote.

“The relatively short time between the trial and the reconstruction hearing, coupled with the full participation of the relevant actors from the original trial — including his own defense attorneys — indicates the contrary was true,” he wrote.

“Mr. Meyers points to no specific witness testimony or exhibit which he could not sufficiently reconstruct on account of defects in the record; nor has he shown that any such testimony was favorable to him,” Wilson wrote.

“The trial exhibits and the significant parts of the trial testimony that did not require reconstruction show an overwhelming amount of evidence of his guilt, and the reconstructed portions provide no basis to believe that Mr. Meyers had any possibility of prevailing on a weight-of-the-evidence challenge,” he wrote.

“Although the numerous “blah blah blahs” and other wholly inappropriate entries in the trial transcript are inexcusable, the substance of the affected sentences is often discernable on the face of the transcript,” he wrote.

“Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, a rational trier of fact could easily conclude the elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” Wilson wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035