Thank Goodness for Court Reporters!

SHARING THE GEORGIA CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE,   “COURTS BRING BACK COURT REPORTERS AFTER ELECTRONIC RECORDING USE”:
“When it comes to ensuring an accurate, fast and cost-effective record of court proceedings, judicial systems around the country are choosing court reporters instead of recording systems.  Realtime translation and daily copy transcripts are available only with a court reporter, providing huge time savings, cost savings, and much greater efficiency.  Court reporters have been the forerunners in applying computer technology in the legal system – computeraided transcription, realtime translation, and video/text integration.  All of these reporter-based technologies have enhanced the functioning of the judicial system for several years in both headline trials and everyday cases.  By providing case information to judges and attorneys in digital format, court reporters produce transcripts that can be researched, corrected, telecommunicated, stored on CD-ROM or other computer media, integrated with a videotape, or simply printed out in a conventional or condensed format.  Court reporters provide and maintain this rapidly changing technology at their own individual expense.

“Some jurisdictions have chosen to experiment with recording systems.  However, they have found that using recording systems in criminal or civil cases frequently causes court delays, increased costs, and equipment failures that result in expensive retrials.  Recording systems require constant maintenance and upgrades as technology improves, resulting in unanticipated expenses to the court and increased personnel.  The courts pay higher transcription costs for inferior transcripts; or if no transcripts are provided, the results are great increases of time and additional personnel costs at all levels of the judicial system, as the text form of the record provides far greater judicial economy.

“TEXAS
2001- Brought back stenographic reporters after trying both audio and video taping methods, citing realtime court reporting and the ability to have an immediate transcript; saving money during expert witness testimony by having the experts review the transcript from the day before instead of sitting through previous days of court; time and equipment involved in reviewing video testimony – taking at least five hours to review five hours of testimony, compared to 30 minutes to review the same transcript; inherent problems and inaccuracies in transcription of recorded proceedings; unanticipated costs and additional personnel to perform all the functions that a stenographic reporter provides.
NEW MEXICO
Started using recording systems in 1982.  By 1986 brought back stenographic reporters, citing unexpected costs, frustrations, backlog of cases at the appellate level, and great increases of time and additional personnel costs with the tape systems.  The state abandoned the systems and returned to faster and more cost-effective court reporters.
FLORIDA
Florida’s supreme court is currently reviewing an appellate court decision to determine what the official record is – the recording or the transcript from the recording. Digital recording systems record everything, including whispered conversations between clients and attorneys or onlookers. Keeping the recording from the public preserves the attorney-client privilege. The appellate court ruled the recordings are not an official record but are used to create the official record. If this decision is upheld, the court will be required to provide written transcripts, resulting in no cost savings to the court.
FEDERAL COURTS
Appellate and trial court judges taking part in a two-year study said videotapes of trials were too cumbersome and took too long to find specific portions.  As a result, the Judicial Conference of the United States voted to end the experiment in 1986.
NEW YORK
2008 – Legislation carried by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would prohibit the use of recording devices — rather than a stenographic record taken by a court reporter — in Supreme Court, county court, district court and family court when delinquency cases are being heard and during jury trials in New York City Civil Court.  The rationale behind the bill is based on complaints about the quality of the transcripts generated by electronic recordings, mostly in family and surrogate’s courts, but also in some criminal courts.
KENTUCKY
1988 – Use of videotape recorders has resulted in malfunctions, retrials at cost to the state, and too much time spent by attorneys reviewing the tapes.
ILLINOIS
1990 – Installed videotape systems tried as an experiment sit idle.  Chief Justice Richard C. Ripple said use of video is very limited.  Other judges refuse to use it, stating they don’t want to watch television.
OREGON
2004 – Officials are calling for the return of court reporters instead of digital recording due to a series of missing or inaudible recordings.  These instances include one hour of missing key witness testimony in a 2003 murder case; a retrial of a 2002 complex civil environmental case because the DR failed to record proceedings onto a CD; attorneys handling criminal appeals saying their clients’ rights are compromised by inaudible portions of recordings; and attorneys hiring their own court reporters for fear of an inaccurate record.
HAWAII
The disastrous loss of nearly 100 grand jury indictments caused by a tape recorder system malfunction has resulted in the state’s trial courts relying exclusively on court reporters, leaving tapes for minor proceedings such as motions.
NEVADA
Nevada Federal Courts and Commissions brought back stenographic reporters in 1995 after using tape systems for three years, citing higher costs and inferior service compared to realtime stenographic reporters.”

“Sources of information:  National Court Reporters Association http://www.ncraonline.org; various state records.”

 

Awesome?: Let Me Count the Ways

How awesome is proofreading?  Proofreading is incredibly helpful; it is accurate; it is a timesaver; it is even educational.  In a word, it is awesome!  The art of proofreading makes everybody look good.  And yes, it is an art; aside from having an aptitude for it, it is learned and practiced knowledge.  Proofreaders L-O-V-E to help people with the written word.  We love English, and we love helping people make it flow.

Consider your reputation, which I know is precious to you:  Proofreading aids the court reporter’s reputation in ensuring a pristine transcript.  Having a fresh, second pair of eyes proofread the transcript has saved valuable time that the reporter would have had to spend on it, rather than moving on to the next job — or dare I say catch 40 winks?  In turn, it also boosts the proofreader’s reputation when a clean transcript is returned to that happy court reporter.  Court reporters, lawyers, authors, journalists — everybody benefits from accurate proofreading!

Proofreading can also be educational.  When the court reporter (or the recipient) sees a correction for something that he/she has not seen before (for example, the term “medicolegal” to replace “medical-legal” or “intrauterine” to replace “interuterine”), it can serve as a learning experience and can be logged into a notebook of reminders for future use.

Have an awesome day of reporting, scoping, and proofreading!

 

 

Depending on Spell-Check

While I am not condemning the use of spell-check, of course, it is important not to depend exclusively on this admittedly handy feature as we proofread.  I would take great care for the very important reason that we do not want to take a chance on missing a word that the spell-check feature will miss.  Two of the many examples of this pitfall are the homonyms “meet,” “mete,” and “meat” and the dreaded “their,” “they’re,” and “there.”  After all, our clients are depending on us, so I feel, in our line of work, we should not depend completely on a computer feature to be alert and sharp for us, right?

Even though we are correcting misused words as we go through a transcript, it is vital to our reputations, and those of our cherished clients, to give our work a second look with our own sharp eyes and leave nothing to chance.

I wish you happy proofing, reporting, and scoping!  🙂