Of course you see them all the time in old movies and TV but do courts still use stenographers? Wouldn’t recordings be more, or at least equally, accurate, and a hell of a lot cheaper? Or is there some legal reason that demands human rather than machine recording?
The court reporters are still there, but the case where I was in the jury, she took audio recordings. This was 1990ish…
I was in court in a civil suit last year, and there was a stenographer, who did not do very good job, IMO.
Perhaps I’m being unfair, but within a couple of days of each proceeding there would be a brief summary of the session posted online. I found that the orders the judge issued to me were included in the summary, but the orders issued to the other party (a corporate giant) were not.
Now it may be that the entire transcript would include those orders, and it might even be that a different person than the stenographer who made the record wrote the summaries, but it sure pissed me off.
I guess there is a need for a written transcript of everything that is being said in court as well as reliable information about who said it. A giant, unedited audio file wouldn’t be of much use for later reference.
I never asked, but I presume the trial was recorded then transcribed later.
That’s true, but the stenographic record isn’t transcribed to English unless there’s some further legal proceeding that requires it. And someone has to pay for that.
To me, a stenographic transcript looks a lot like Arabic writing.
Why not? If there is a need for a transcript, it could be made from the audio file. (That in fact is how it’s done in the courts I practise in - not in the US, though, so outside the scope of the OP.)
Plus, you would need to have a transcript made from the court steno’s work, since those machines do not produce a record that is readable by the average person. They make a machine shorthand record.
ETA: post was replying to donnerwetter’s statement about the utility of a large audio file; other posts weren’t there when I posted.
In many trials, we order daily transcripts, so we need a court reporter in the courtroom.
But, to the OP’s main point, a lot courts have already transitioned to a video record of proceedings, which is only transcribed if needed (for an appeal, for example).
Courts long ago switched over to Stenotype machines over handwritten shorthand.
This is the way it is still done. However, there seems to be a trend in California, where Court funding is cut because it is politically invisible, to remove Court Reporters unless the parties pay for the Court Reporter. It is very expensive. This is a huge disadvantage to parties that cannot pay several hundred dollars for a Court Reporter just to show up when all sides know the judge is generally in favor or rich parties. It makes appeals next to impossible. Recording should be allowed.
It was probably the judge’s clerk who generated the summary, rather than the stenographer. Normally clerks will keep notes on the judge’s oral pronouncements so they can generate (or have a party generate) a proposed written order later. Generally, a stenographically recorded proceeding won’t be transcribed unless somebody actually requests a copy (as you said in your following post).
I once had a job conducting administrative hearings , and in some locations they were videotaped and transcribed later. I can only assume that it was less expensive to do it that way than it was to pay a stenographer to sit in the courtroom all day and then pay later for the transcription. Not everything that went on in the courtroom was “on the record” , so six or seven hours of courtroom time might result in only two or three hours of recording. A big problem was that there is apparently no way to monitor the quality of the recording. I don’t mean when the recording device doesn’t work- I mean when people speak too softly or mumble or are talking over each other. Stenographers will ask people to speak up or repeat themselves , but obviously the machine can’t and producing a transcript is not the priority of anyone else in the room. It’s not unheard of for everyone in the room to understand/hear what was said at the time but for the stenographer producing the transcript days or weeks to be unable to make out what was said. Hence, the reason I’ve read so many transcripts where “inaudible” was the most common word. Some recordings were so bad that an usable transcript could not be produced- leading to an automatic win on an administrative appeal in my hearings.
I don’t know what would happen if an appeal was filed on a criminal case and no transcript could be produced- but I suspect it would be a problem.
We just have the recording, but if a transcript is needed for the next day, there is an overnight transcription service. Usually only used in civil trials, and at the parties’ expense.
Don’t you need someone taking the transcript live so the judge can be all “Will the stenographer please read back what the defendant said?”
About 3 years ago I was on the jury for a murder trial, and the court stenographer on her stenotype was very much a part of the proceeding. Occasionally one of the lawyers or the judge would ask her to read something back from an earlier time in the trial. Once we began deliberation, when there was some testimony we wanted to hear again we filed into the courtroom to hear her read it back. She read absolutely deadpan which we had been advised she was required to do.
This was Broward County Florida, the trial was about a month long, and the death penalty was on the table.
In our system, if the judge or the jury wants a piece of testimony repeated, the clerk rewinds the recording to the relevant spot and it’s played out, so everyone in the courtroom hears it again, exactly as it was said originally by the witness.
With respect to “inaudibles” on the recording, there’s a time lag so the clerk can monitor the recording. The person speaks, the machine records, and plays the recording in an earpiece the clerk is wearing. That way, if the recording fails for some reason, the clerk can advise the judge right away, who can tell the witness or lawyer to speak up, or repeat the question or answer.
It’s ten years since I’ve been a judge’s assistant in California, but I think I can clarify some of the confusion.
First, you need to draw the distinction between Municipal-level proceedings and Superior-level proceedings. Municipal-level proceedings include criminal misdemeanors, civil trials seeking damages of lesser sums (it was $25,000 or less in my day, but that may have changed by now), small claims and the like. There are never court reporters (stenographers) in those proceedings.
Superior-level proceedings include domestic court, probate, juvenile court, felonies and others. Court reporters are always used for those proceedings. We were beginning to transition to taped proceedings by the judge’s assistant at the time I left, but there were a lot of problems with unintelligible discussions and people talking over each other. Court reporters are good for keeping that sorted, and judges act as traffic cops when a reporter is distressed by too many people talking at once. This makes for a clean record.
As has been pointed out, in Superior Court civil proceedings, the cost for the court reporter is always borne by the parties, and it is expensive. Transcripts are extra and only prepared at the request of the party who is paying for it. For Superior Court felony hearings/trials, again, a court reporter is always present and takes down the verbatim record, but transcripts are only prepared if required by law or at the direction of the judge. For example, all preliminary hearing proceedings are transcribed by law.
In a death penalty trial, not only are court reporters required to be present and taking down the verbatim record, but they are required to prepare “dailies” – meaning a transcript of the prior day’s proceedings must be prepared and available to all parties by the beginning of the next court session. This means at least two court reporters are required for any death penalty case.
The summary of all proceedings of every kind, whether Municipal or Superior level, is prepared by the judge’s assistant. Those records are referred to as the court minutes. They are not intended to be a verbatim record. They are a summary of the “high points” of what happened at the proceeding that day: Who was present; what motions were made; how the judge ruled; which exhibits were marked/received in evidence; when proceedings were concluded and to what day the proceeding was next adjourned. They are a road map of a case for anyone who looks at the case file and wants to know what happened on what day.
Hope this helps your understanding.
Some states use stenographers, some have switched to tape recordings. Actually, it may be up to the individual counties or even the judges themselves. The problem with tape recordings is that on the surface it may seem like they’re the obviously better, simpler, cheaper, more logical choice. But not really. A courtroom is a big noisy room, with not necessarily good acoustics, with multiple people talking one after the other (with frequent overlap). If it comes down to having to refer to a specific, key bit of testimony a tape recording could require a complex forensic examination, similar to NTSB investigators listening to flight voice recorders. What’s being actually said is open to interpretation, subject to noise, speech patterns, context, emotion etc.
A stenographer is essentially a human voice-to-text transcription facilitator. With a human brain that understands all the basics of common sense, context of speech, emotional tones etc not to mention the subtleties of legalize. More often than not I’d say they’re more likely to be useful & accurate than a simple tape recording.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned yet, but what about the stenographers who don’t use a keyboard, but instead repeat what’s being said as clearly as possible into a funnel-like mouthpiece that is then recorded onto audio tape. What are these devices and operators called? And how popular or accurate are they regarded to be?
When I saw this for the first time, I thought the poor court reporter suffered a horrible asthma attack and nobody in the court room seemed to show any sign of compassion.