I’m no expert, but as a point of interest, I just read the transcripts of a trial in Federal district court in NY from earlier this year. They had been transcribed by an actual court reporter in real time–there was a decent amount of interaction between the judge and the court reporter, including readbacks. The judge also frequently instructed the witnesses to speak up and slow down for the sake of the stenographer.
There were different stenographers on different days, and in some cases they used a different transliteration of a foreign word, which I though was interesting–both “correct”, but one seemingly a bit outdated.
Yes, you do. And by the same token, I recently spoke with someone who does this for a living and she pointed out that because of advances in technology, during trials, real time transcripts can now be made available to the participants. For instance, an attorney, sitting at his desk, may want to check something that a witness said several minutes prior, and can gain access to that testimony because there is a court reporter taking it all down. Audio and video recording have their virtues, but those don’t obviate the benefits of a court reporter.
If I recall correctly, the judge who presided over the Casey Anthony murder trial had access to a (obviously human-readable) real-time feed generated by the court reporter’s stenotype machine. Essentially, it’s a form of closed captioning.
The hearings I’ve seen which used either audio or video recording didn’t have a clerk who could monitor the recording- the judge would have had to monitor the recording.( because you certainly couldn’t have the prosecution or defense monitor it) If you’re going to bring additional personnel in, you might as well use a stenographer.
I read about this back in April. A court stenographer in New York typed “I hate my job” over and over instead of taking down the actual testimony. (Yes, the cite does reference The Shining.) There were no recordings, so they arrested the stenographer and tried to make him say what he actually remembered about one case. Didn’t do a whole lot of good, big surprise. Then the judge brought back all the witnesses and lawyers and asked what they remembered.
The whole case has Law and Order or maybe Boston Legal written all over it. I can just imagine what Jack McCoy or Lenny Briscoe would have said.
We always have a court clerk in all proceedings. Bringing in a stenographer (which is how it used to be done here) would increase costs, while having the court clerk do it is sufficient for monitoring purposes.
Quite right.
We hire one for our political conventions. She types on a small special keyboard, connected to a computer, and the display is projected onto a large screen in the auditorium. She provides real-time text of the activity during the convention, which everyone can read.
We originally did this as an accommodation for deaf or hard-of-hearing participants, but were surprised to hear from many others how helpful they found this, given the noise & confusion at political conventions. So we have continued to do so.
But it is expensive. And they are giving us a special discount rate, to support people participating in the political process (and because the stenographer says this is so much more interesting than her usual day of taking down dry legal depositions). Her text transcription is also recorded on her computer, and they offer us the option of purchasing that file (delivered within 1 day, or 3 days, or 7 days). The price decreases if you give them more time to deliver it, but it still seems extremely high to us. But I suppose it’s reasonable if you’re in court of a million dollar lawsuit.
Are stenographers typically allowed to choose what device to use, or even use their own device, as long as the transcript is accurate? E.g. how often does it happen that Joe P. Stenographer shows up for work one day, goes to the supply department to pick up a stenography machine, and gets told by the clerk that the only stenograph available right now is the old 1975 Berzerker Mark 2 that Joe really hates?
Court reporters generally have their own individual equipment that they bring with them (that they’ve purchased with their own money), rather than a pool of machines that any reporter can use. Generally a stenography machine attached to a laptop that translates their typing on the fly.
No two court reporters speak exactly the same “language.” They are taught a basic shorthand during their schooling, but their setups are as individual as they are. The keystrokes they make on their machines must be tailored to be read by their computer in real time. They can USUALLY read each others’ paper tapes, but sometimes it can be challenging.
Everything they use is expensive: Their steno machines, the software for their computers, etc. If they are officials, meaning official reporters of the court, they work long, long hours. They must be available to their judge at any time court is in session. Their transcribing work is all done on their own time or during slow times when court is in recess.
They earn good money – but they do earn it. Many of them suffer from repetitive motion injuries at some point in their careers, particularly if they work for a judge who isn’t mindful of breaks or making sure the discussion in the courtroom occurs in a measured fashion.
Yes, they are very much still there in the courtrooms, at least the civil, criminal, and appeals courts. (I’m an attorney) There are audio recordings made and the reason for court reporters is due to the possibility of electronic audio failure.
Wow! So he fell on hard times and all, but tough titty. I hope they charge this guy with multiple felonies like evidence tampering. Hell, he’s essentially guilty of perjury by proxy (if there is such a thing)…