In Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1253, 77 S. Ct. 1127 (1957), the court reporter who made notes during the trial died before he was able to transcribe them. A second court reporter, who was related to the prosecutor by marriage, took the notes and produced a record from them in part by discussing the testimony with the prosecutor and the police officers who testified at trial. Chessman was not represented in person or by counsel in the proceedings to approve the new record. The United States Supreme Court held that this procedure did not comport with due process. All we hold is that, consistently with procedural due process, California's affirmance of petitioner's conviction upon a seriously disputed record, whose accuracy petitioner has had no voice in determining, cannot be allowed to stand. Id. at 164.