Audio recording vs. court reporting

When I tell people that I'm learning to be a court reporter, they look at me like I've chosen an obsolete career. They nod sweetly, but gently steer the conversation to technology and then tell me, "you know, some courts have replaced their court reporters with audio equipment?" Yes, it's true. In an effort to save money in their budgets, two adjacent states (Minnesota and Iowa) have already replaced court reporters in some of their courts.

It may take a while, but I think these courts will realize their mistake eventually. Here are a couple of items I spotted in my Judicial Court Reporting magazine:

INAUDIBLES AND INDISCERNIBLES STALL THIRD DISTRICT CASE

In the Third District, appellant Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company filed a motion to correct the record due to the approximately 10,000 inaudible and indiscernibles that riddle the trial and sidebar transcripts. The errors were not spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, but substantive mistakes. According to the motion, no court reporter was present during the trial, and the audio discs taken of the proceedings were sent to a transcription service.

The District Court pursued its own review of the transcripts and learned that several audio discs were missing from the trial. According to the motion, "Despite the District Court's best efforts, the record is not certifiable at this point." The appellants requested an extension to review the transcript once the district court has produced a certified record.

RECORDING DEVICE FAILURE CANCELS COURT IN ALBERTA

According to the July 20, 2010, Drayton Valley, Alberta, Canada, Western Review, a technical glitch in the audio recording device in the court meant that those who had business were required to come back another day. There was no additional information in the article as to what caused the problem in the recording system.

This has become a topic of conversation is my steno class too. Thankfully, South Dakota judges are pro court reporter. They understand the need for a human being to properly record court proceedings. The court reporter insures that the witness is heard and understood, and that people don't talk over each other. It's the court reporter's responsibility to stop and say, "I'm sorry, could you speak up? I couldn't hear what you said." Or imagine if a witness is from other country and isn't fluent in English. It's the court reporter's responsibility to stop the testimony and confirm what a witness said. Tape recorders don't do that.

In the long run, taping trials doesn't save any money and I hope the courts start realizing this soon.