Don't sacrifice quality for lower costs
|
Pringle |
By TOM PRINGLE
No matter how improved electronic reporting has become, digital or analog,
it still only records noise: Words, coughs, sneezes, doors opening and closing,
etc. It has not gotten better at making "the record." It places no
priority on its recording; the loudest sound wins. Court reporters only record
the words of those individuals designated to speak in the courtroom.
Then there is the issue of access. What good is a record if you cannot find
it later? The access to an ER record is only as good as the log that accompanies
it.
Here in California, the clerks have been identified as the individuals in the
courtroom with the most time on their hands and therefore the logical choice
to assume this important responsibility. Whoever thinks this has obviously never
seen a real clerk at work. Given the responsibility and importance of the clerk's
job, they clearly do not have time to be a court reporter, too.
There is also the claim that there is no substantial loss of quality. I think
the litigants in Northwest Steelheaders v. Simantel, Case No. 99C 12309, out
of Marion County, Ore., would disagree.
The proceeding, held in the fall of 2001, was a five-day-long bench trial.
During the trial, the system monitors indicated that recording was proceeding
normally; then it was discovered that only one of the five days was recorded.
The judge had to grant a mistrial because no transcript could be prepared for
appeal. The retrial - a two-week jury trial - was held in February 2002 at considerable
expense to all litigants.
One of the states recently cited as installing electronic reporting without
substantial loss of quality is Illinois. In December of 2002, the Illinois State
Bar passed a resolution that includes the following:
"Further, be it resolved it is unacceptable to use exclusively electronic
recordings to report proceedings except as a backup device to a human court
reporter who is required to take a verbatim report of proceedings." The
resolution passed by an overwhelming margin.
On the issue of cost savings, I adopt the sentiments expressed by the Hon.
Joseph A. Kalashian of Tulare County in a letter he wrote recently to Sens.
Charles Poochigian and Dean Florez, and Assembly members Bill Maze and Nicole
Parra. Judge Kalashian wrote, "The Tulare County Superior Court has had
experience in 1992 with electronic reporting when we were part of a state pilot
program allowed to use electronic recording. Using electronic recording equipment
in place of court reporters is being proposed as a way of reducing costs. This
will not happen.
"The court would have to hire staff to competently handle the recording
device. However, even assuming that the recording is done properly, there still
needs to be a paper transcript because appellate courts require them, thus requiring
additional 'people time' to produce this transcript.
"At the present time, trial courts do not have electronic recording devices
and thus the courts would have to have substantial start-up costs (in the millions
of dollars), whereas the present system does not pay for court reporters' equipment.
Court reporters pay for their own equipment as independent contractors."
Permit me a court reporter factoid here: The statutorily authorized rate official
court reporters charge for a transcript has not increased in nearly 15 years.
That is no anomaly. Over the past 100 years the transcript rate has increased
only 325 percent; the Consumer Price Index increased approximately 2,000 percent
over the same period.
We are not talking about pirating rap music off the Internet here; we are talking
about the record of proceedings in court. These are the verbatim records on
appeal; there are times when someone's life literally hangs in the balance.
Electronic reporting does not provide the training and experience, the eyes
and ears of a court reporter; it does not distinguish between a Marsden hearing
and an Eminem ditty.
I still do not believe electronic reporting provides the quality or the access
that the record deserves. I do not even concede that, when all factors are taken
into consideration, and even in the face of the current budget deficit, electronic
reporting delivers the "substantial savings" promised by its purveyors.
The record represents accountability of our system of justice to its citizens;
it helps maintain consistency in the application of that justice. It is not
the place to be sacrificing quality and access in the name of economy.
Tom Pringle is president of the California Court Reporters
Association and a member of the Judicial Council's Reporting of the Record Task
Force.
|