Court systems facing budget crunches often believe that electronic/digital or video recording provides a cheaper alternative to stenographic reporting. Those in favor of these methodologies often note that the hefty initial investment for the equipment is offset by reduced salaries and benefits for tape monitors.
Admittedly, budget crises in many of the nation's courts have increased the pressure to use alternative record-making methodologies in the place of qualified stenographic court reporters. However, stenographic reporters have played an integral role in bringing state-of-the-art technology into the courtroom. In fact, this technology offers many advantages when compared to digital audio or video recording.
For example, a realtime court reporter's stenographic notes are translated instantly, displayed on a computer screen and digitally archived to a computer. Realtime court reporters create a verbatim text record of the proceedings for instant review and use by attorneys and judges. In fact, realtime is the only "voice-to-text" technology that meets the rigorous demand for accuracy that exists in the legal environment.
The primary distinction between digital audio recording and tape recording is the ability to search the digital audio file if it is properly annotated, which it often is not. In every other sense, it's simply a tape recording. And with that come certain challenges, such as the fact that digital audio records sounds, not words. When several participants in the proceeding speak at once, or there is a great deal of background noise, inaudibles are common, bringing the recording's value and integrity into question. Similar problems arise because what a video camera will record depends on what sounds courtroom microphones acquire. Realtime court reporters can stop the proceedings to ensure an accurate record is made.
To assist those courts wishing to examine the process for making record, the Justice Management Institute conducted a study, funded by the National Court Reporters Foundation, which led to the development of the two-volume "How to Conduct an Assessment of Your Court's Record-Making Operations: A Systemic Approach." The study allows court officials and administrators to assess their court's efficiency and determine how to better use court reporters and other methodologies. This document has enabled several courts to reorganize their record-making operations to run more efficiently.
In fact, several courtrooms that replaced court reporters with alternative methodologies have now switched back to realtime court reporters. States such as New Mexico, New Jersey and Texas have found that the recording systems left much to be desired. Problems with inaudibles, blank tapes and overall system failures caused these states to return to the use of court reporters for major cases. It is also important to mention that electronic and digitally recorded transcripts generally take up to two times as long to be compiled, edited and returned as a final document. Moreover, courts fail to recognize the hidden costs, such as maintenance fees and the cost of transcription. While a digital audio record is stored in the form of bits and bytes, it still has to be listened to and manually transcribed for appeal.
Court reporters have been ahead of the rest of the legal system in applying digital technology in the workplace. Reporter-based technologies such as realtime enhance the functioning of the judicial system in both headline trials and everyday depositions. Embracing technology that supports and enhances the efficient operations of the courts is one thing; naïve dependence on technology and the elimination of human judgment and wisdom is quite another. Put simply, employing the services of a realtime court reporter in a well-managed courtroom ensures a complete, accurate, secure and instant record of what was said for immediate use by attorneys and judges. Digital audio or video can't make that guarantee.
At this point in time, court reporters, as "Guardians of the Record," are still the preferred method of making the record for most judges.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION