Sunbelt Blog

I'm originally from Ky., worked in the circuit court there. Very happy to be working in S. Carolina state courts now. Ky. completed the transition to video about three years ago, citing the usual cost savings, and of course, has had the same problems. Though, I doubt Ky. will switch back to reporters, I'm forwarding this article to the Ky. Supreme Court & Governor Beshear.

It is unfortunate to see the unnecessary cost of the equipment and time lost that has occurred as a result of what I am sure was an attempt to initially save dollars by replacing live court reporters with audio recordings. I am pleased, however, that the above-listed districts have seen their way to making this decision back to what works. I hope more follow. 
 
This is a win for the system, the public, and, of course, the live court reporters who can now get back to guarding the record as it's meant to be guarded.

While the information in the article is great, I would like to clarify that the live court reporter, while a traditional figure in the courtroom, utilizes cutting-edge technology that is far superior to digital recordings. Having such a reporter is the exact opposite of "abandoning technology."

I must agree with Jill who posted above. A live reporter who uses today's tools of realtime, wireless technology, and the ability to stream their text to a remote location for instant scoping IS the latest technology in today's courtroom!

While other jurisdictions have made the outlay, Florida continues to spread digital recording throughout the state. Florida utilizes the MOST expensive equipment and although we don't locally see the total loss of record, since switching to digital the accuracy of the transcriptions are questionable and the appellate turnaround has gone from 30 days or less to three to four months. Although everyone knows this to be true and Florida's system has been the poster child for states NOT going to digital, our state refuses to cut the losses and continues on with, as noted in the comment above, the lesser technology at a higher overall expense than live court reporters...embarrassing, but true. 
 

As a court reporter in FL, I am happy to hear this news. I make this analogy: Would you rather have a pilot flying your airplane or only auto-pilot??

True costs associated with these conversions are never revealed by the salesmen touting the cost savings of a recording system. How much does it cost taxpayers even when the system works in a substandard manner? When it fails altogether? In purchased equipment that is then obsolete when the shortcomings are realized? It's too bad ER/DAR salespeople aren't held responsible for the records in the same manner that live court reporters are. Court reporters are the technologically advanced guardians of the record and the only reliable form of voice-to-text recognition.

Just wanted to echo Jill's comments. Many reporters also record redundant levels of audio for double-checking during proofreading, which syncs up to their time-stamped, real-time transcript -- already typed, easily searchable.  
 
If the reporter isn't able to hear something due to mumbling, slurring, or cross-talk, they're there to interrupt for clarification. On the other hand, you cannot ask a tape to repeat itself, speak up, or otherwise clarify what was actually said. A digital recording will not remind you when it is not recording adequately, and there is no backup in the form of a live transcript. Beyond that, the person recording may not be the person transcribing, and you might not know for a long time after the proceeding that there is a problem with the record. 
 
If a glitch in the audio goes unnoticed, they're certified to accurately type 200+ words a minute, and are there to interrupt and ask questions when people mumble, talk over each other, or talk too quickly for the reporter to keep up. Many people don't realize that the highest quality captions during live-broadcast news and sports are also completed using equipment identical to what's used by court stenographers, and that those captions are being typed in real-time.  
 
By having a court reporter instead of relying solely on digital recording, you do not lose the audio record: You gain a highly trained scribe who can guide you to any point in the record, as it is being created, who at all times has access to a highly accurate, easily referenced rough draft. That rough draft, if necessary, can later be polished against an already sync'd audio recording. For the most part, if a court reporter does their job, there isn't even a need for the audio, but it is there nonetheless.  
 
That guide (court reporter) will also take steps to help attorneys, witnesses, and all parties ensure that they are speaking in a way that will leave them with a sound record of what was said, and one that can be read back at all times.  
 
That reporter also leaves the attorneys with the option of viewing their real-time rough draft to aide in their questioning and legal argument. 
 

I've just spent over 12 hours in an effort to transcribe an audio recording made by a police inspector questioning a complaining witness. Even given my talents as a listener, skills honed by many years of court reporting, and my ability to write simultaneously what I'm hearing on the audio recording, I cannot hear/interpret correctly many of the witness's statements because of his distance from the recording device, his pronounced accent, and the extraneous noises picked up by the device. Prior to my working on this, six different people spent many hours listening to and attempting to transcribe the interview. How, pray tell, does this save time, money, or manpower?

Administrators are trying to save money, but they don't always get the "big picture" and might choose ER to create a verbatim record, but then find their "cost savings" becomes a nightmare. I read about many cases in which ER is lost. And I listen to ER tapes from hearings that are worthless trying to create a transcript. Texas is wise to switch back to live court reporters.

I agree with all the comments I have read here. My agency has been asked to transcribe "sophisticated" audio recordings, but the same problems occurred: more than one person talking at a time, turning away from the microphone, not being properly identified, foreign accents, unintelligible comments and more. A trained, live court reporter is there to interrupt when the record is not clear for whatever reason. I am also suspicious that some ER firms are sending the audio out of the United States to be transcribed at a very low pay rate.  
 

For years, I've said that court reporters and court reporting firms should stop accepting audiotapes to be transcribed. In my early years as a court reporter, I transcribed some audiotapes and even a videotape, including a trial in Pennsylvania, as that was the work assigned by the firm I worked for. The quality is always bad, I end up feeling like I'm barely making minimum wage with the time and effort that goes into trying to listen and transcribe it, and these days, I feel when court reporters agree to transcribe audiotapes they are just hurting themselves because they're replacing themselves with electronic recording and a typist.