Judge Argues for Court Reporters Over Recording Devices

, New York Law Journal

   | 6 Comments

A Queens Family Court judge blasted the use of electronic recording systems in place of court reporters, saying the machines frequently produce useless records of trial proceedings and "appears to lack any legislative sanction."

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

View this content exclusively through LexisNexis® Here

Not a LexisNexis® Subscriber?

Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Originally appeared in print as Judge Argues Court Reporters Superior to Recording Devices

What's being said

  • not available

    We have had recording devices in justice courts for 6 years or so now. It is remarkable how good the quality is. However, there are drawbacks including the read back at trial. In the big courts, I suppose I would come down on the side of stenographic recording but for most justice courts, I would say electronic recording is fine.

  • not available

    It is most unfortunate that a "semi-competent stenographer" had to interrupt the flow of questions and answers in order to make a verbatim record. As a certified professional reporter working as an official reporter in a heavy-volume courthouse, I can attest to the fact that many attorneys could use a good refresher course on how to make a record. As a certified reporter, we are tested in Q

  • not available

    Mechanical recording is far less expensive, and in my experience of 32 years superior to the use of stenographers. I have seen so many stenographic transcripts where portions of the script do not remotely match what was said. I have been in numerous proceedings where a semi-competent stenographer interrupts the flow of the questions and answers, because of her/his inability to keep up. I have seen transcripts from mechanically recorded proceedings that were fine. As an aside, I served four years with the National Security Agency intercepting military and diplomatic communications in an Eastern European language, and the old reel to reel did a fine job of getting it all down. It is about time that the court reporters are outed for what they really are--a part of a technologically challenged age that is no more, and a very expensive and inefficient alternative to mechanical recording.

  • not available

    There are a number of problems with audio recording of court proceedings. Questions, and answers to questions, cannot be read back. When 2 people speak at once, what each said cannot be ascertained -- a court reporter will get both down in most cases -- and a judge has to get the speakers to repeat themselves separately for the record to be clear. Current court reporting equipment allows almost instantaneous transcripts, and at most a transcript can be provided within days of trial; a transcript of electronically recorded proceedings take weeks and often contain "inaudible" entries. Testimony by telephone (primarily in child support cases before a support magistrate) is often inaudible.

  • alm

    The Legislature may not have barred electronic recording, but the statute mandates stenographic recording. Logically, that means there is nothing to prevent the use of electronic recording IN ADDITION TO STENOGRAPHIC RECORDING at the same proceeding. It does not mean that electronic recording can be used as a substitute for stenographic recording. Bookstaver needs a course in remedial legislative interpretation.

  • alm

    The Legislature may not have barred electronic recording, but the statute mandates stenographic recording. Logically, that means there is nothing to prevent the use of electronic recording IN ADDITION TO STENOGRAPHIC RECORDING at the same proceeding. It does not mean that electronic recording can be used as a substitute for stenographic recording. Bookstaver needs a course in remedial legislative interpretation.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202643149144

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.