Technology Can’t Replace Court Reporters
Original article from the Fresno Bee
Our April 28 editorial entitled, “State should switch over from using court reporters,” reflects a grave misunderstanding of the proper use of recording devices in court. To suggest that “it’s time to end the debate and make the switch” to digital recording is naïve at best.
A reader might conclude from the editorial that courts, bullied by the court reporters’ union, have rejected any attempts to implement available technology. In fact, nearly all courts in California use digital recording to some degree.
The Fresno Superior Court uses digital recording for all infractions and misdemeanors, including trials, except when those charges appear on a calendar with felony charges. Unlawful detainer cases, limited civil and restraining order cases are routinely recorded.
I am regularly required to review many of these cases. Frequently important parts of the proceedings are unintelligible or missing; sometimes the recording of an entire trial is lost or destroyed.
Even in these “less important” cases, an accurate record is no less important to the involved parties. Certainly everyone suffers, including the taxpayer, if one of these proceedings has to be retried because a technical glitch prevents an adequate review of the proceedings.
A certified shorthand reporter (CSR) is more accurate than a trained transcriptionist working with the cleanest recording.
Of course, obtaining a clean recording in an actual jury trial is nearly impossible: witnesses mumble, they speak softly and often have great difficulty using a microphone. They may speak as they face a diagram or demonstrate an action, while someone coughs loudly or brushes against a microphone.
Attorneys move about to retrieve exhibits, approach witnesses or display items on a projector. Often witnesses answer a question while an attorney is still asking it, even as opposing counsel lodges an objection.
Court reporters have the unique ability to sort all of this out and ask questions, if necessary, to obtain an accurate record. A transcriptionist simply writes “unintelligible.”
In a trial court there is no substitute for contemporaneous transcription by a trained and experienced CSR. How are we to read back or review a digitally recorded question or answer?
If a deliberating jury asks for witness testimony, shall we play a recording laden with objections, rulings, stricken testimony, sidebars or privileged attorney/client conversations?
Will we listen to the recording first to try to remove these things? Will we allow expediency to trump due process and dispense with reading back testimony altogether?
Even if a trial transcript of comparable accuracy could be obtained through digital recording, it would not be more affordable. State-of-the-art recording equipment is expensive and requires monitoring and maintenance.
Reducing a recording to a transcript still requires considerable time and skill. Attorneys would use this option for depositions if it were more affordable and of comparable accuracy. It is not.
Court reporters are never paid overtime, even when court runs late. They purchase, update and maintain their own sophisticated hardware, software and supplies at considerable expense. They prepare transcripts on their own time, after court recesses and often late at night and on weekends.
Why do CSRs own the court transcript? For one thing, it is their work product, generated on their own time at their expense.
Additionally, not all proceedings are routinely transcribed, so reporters must maintain their notes and drafts in case a transcript is later required, perhaps years or even decades later. Only then are they paid for the transcript, at a rate per page that has not increased in more than 20 years.
Only the very best reporters obtain certification, after years of training and testing. They learn the highly sophisticated techniques of their trade and important legal terminology. Over time, the best develop an extensive shorthand dictionary of commonly used terms.
Court reporters are indispensable to the administration of justice. They are well paid professionals, as they should be. They simply cannot be replaced by existing technology, whatever the cost.
W. Kent Hamlin is a Superior Court judge in Fresno County.
Join the Conversation
