On August 24, there is a hearing at the Capitol about electronic courtreporting. There is a renewed effort afoot by county commissioners to pass legislation allowing the implementation of ECR to replace live reporters. Other states have tried this (especially Florida where they cannot hire enough reporters) and at least one court in Texas has. The results have not been promising-- retrials have been required as a result of inadequate records. Commissioners embrace the idea because ECR has potential to save money. Their idea is to replace most reporters with ECR.

Obviously court reporters have considerable interest in keeping their jobs, but do lawyers and judges really want such a system implemented without guarantees of reliable records?

Court Smart is one of the companies speaking at the hearing.
Thoughts, comments, ideas?

I've long thought the reporter's fees are way too high. OTOH, our juvenile court sometimes uses a tape recorder in place of a reporter and the results give cause for worry. In re G.M.S.,
991 S.W.2d 923 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, pet. denied). Lots of forgetting to change the audio tape and lots of people not speaking into the microphone.

It seems like data storage has gotten so cheap that you could just videotape the entire courtroom whenever the doors are unlocked. You need some system that is idiot proof. The recording of testimony at the legislature seems to work pretty well.

I've heard that some states just provide a summary of what happened at trial rather than a full record.

Lest we forget, court reporters don't just transcribe testimony. A faithful, long-term court reporter also does much to keep his/her judge out of hot water. Few cameras or voice data recorders are prone to such favors. Consequently, there's probably a pretty significant component of the judiciary that may look with disdain upon phasing out recording systems with a pulse.

David,

I understand that Judy Miller (for those who don't know her, she is a court reporter in Tarrant County) knows about as much as anyone on this issue.

I am fairly certain that appellate attormeys need to know more about ECR and become involved in the talking process before we are left an undesirable result. Perhaps everyone can visit with their court reporters to find out more.

Whatever is decided, they should test it out first before they impose it on all the courts.

Having litigated cases mired in the sordid underbelly of court reporting over the years, it is hard to imagine anything worse than what we have. Except for relying solely on a tape recorder.

Right now, we have a person who is supposed to take notes and a recorder. At least there is some redundancy.

I say let the civil lawyers try it out as a pilot project. With apologies to Mr. Brumley and our civil division.

I say don't do it unless the defendant signs a piece of paper accepting the risk of losing parts of the record.

And, gee, who is going to put the little stickers on the exhibits? Or whisper that the State forgot to prove venue? Or remind the baby prosecutor not to leave the drugs near the defendant? Or tell everyone to be quiet during a guilty plea? Or play cards with the judge?

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas

Or testify regarding the judge's improper use of certain pumping devices at the bench . . .

Found the CourtSmart page:

http://www.courtsmart.com/htm/sol_courts.htm

Here's an interesting court rule implementing electronic recording:
http://www.jud6.org/LegalPractice/AOSAndRules/aos/aos2004/2004-018.htm . I loved the directions to attorneys:

e. Attorneys and parties shall:

(i) Speak clearly and speak into the microphone,
(ii) Not tamper with microphones or electronic recording equipment,
(iii) Ensure that microphones are on for all non-private communications, and
(iv) Remember that non-verbal communication is not recorded.

We should not forget, either, that a good machine stenography system now has mutiple redundancies. First, the reporter's keystrokes are electronically recorded. Second, the keystrokes are mechanically recorded on paper tape. The court reporter, judge, and attorneys can see the paper tape as it is recording keystrokes (and when it runs out). Most of our court reporters have a backup tape recorder running. This is used to help edit the electronic or paper notes and has been used to fill in gaps in the past, say if the electronic disk becomes full or if the paper runs out mid-sentence.

Additionally, a number of our courts have real-time transcription equipment. In these courts, the judge (and sometimes the attorneys) can see what is being typed, and presumably could stop proceedings if the reporter is impaired.

A tape based (or electronic recording) system would eliminate multiple redundancies. Having dealt with court reporters who lied, died, went crazy, broke down, disappeared, had their notes sucked up by a tornado, and ran from the IRS, I believe redundancy is a good thing. A very good thing.

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 07-12-06 at .]

I began my career with DPS as an ALR hearings attorney. SOAH used, and still uses, a tape recording system rather than a court reporter. I remember how often the written transcripts, which are required for appeal, had missing dialogue because the tape was garbled, the witness spoke too softly, etc. In more than one case, we ended up with an order for a new SOAH hearing because the tape had broken or was otherwise too badly damaged to transcribe.

I think it's a bad idea if taping is the only way the record will be kept.

Janette Ansolabehere