of achieving the same information.” (R. 826.) Accordingly, although I do not agree with all of the majority’s analysis as to this issue, I respectfully concur in the result. SHAW, Judge, concurring in the result. I disagree with the analysis in Part I of the unpublished memorandum regarding preservation and due diligence. I believe that the issue of the trial court’s denial of James Anthony Ball’s motion for a transcript of his two previous trials, which ended in mistrials, is properly before this Court, and that the trial court’s denial of the motion was error under Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 431, 80 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971). However, under the circumstances in this case, I believe the error was harmless. See, e.g., United States v. Tyler, 943 F.2d 420 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The sole issue at trial was Ball’s sanity;
holding that harmlesserror analysis is inappropriate in reviewing the appointment of an interested prosecutor recognizing similar analysis applies to discrimination and retaliation claims holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis recognizing that harmlesserror analysis applies to britt violations holding that harmlesserror analysis applies to coerced confessions