The official record from Judge Myron Duhart’s Lucas County Common Pleas courtroom apparently will be transcribed by another person and not the person monitoring the new equipment (“Electronic device replaces human recorder; Courtroom goes digital,” Feb. 7).
In 2010, the Ohio Court Reporters Association retained a court management consulting firm to provide a cost analysis of stenographic court reporting versus digital recording in Ohio courts. It found that the error rate in transcription for a stenographic court reporter is less than 1 percent, whereas for a transcribed digital audio recording, the error rate can be as high as 24 percent.
The Ohio Court Reporters Association and the National Court Reporters Association maintain a database of reported failures of electronic/digital recordings in courts. Last year, in the case State of Ohio vs. Todd Conner, in the state’s 6th Appellate District, the appellant’s testimony, along with his witness’ testimony, were missing from the audio recording.
Judge Duhart said: “We’re just trying to move from the dinosaur age to the digital age.” Today’s stenographic court reporters use state-of-the-art equipment and technology to provide an instantaneous, voice-to-text transcript of proceedings as they are occurring. The written text is then instantly transmitted to the judge and attorneys, providing them access to a written transcript that can be searched and annotated.
Today’s stenographic machines are paperless, simultaneously creating three digital copies, which can easily be stored on a server or other medium.
Stenographic court reporters are trained to be the guardian of the record. A stenographic court reporter providing real-time translation of proceedings is the most efficient method of making the record.
Susan Horak, President Ohio Court Reporters Association Columbus
Original Article: www.ToledoBlade.com
Everyone in the Legal system knows that court reporters offer the best technology along with maintaining the integrity of the record.
Until we do away with the rampant corruption in our legal and political system court reporters will be the scapegoats.
My firm offers both stenographic and digital services. It’s a shame that all of these corner cutting “court management consultants” are giving good digital reporters a bad name. Although there isn’t currently a good replacement for realtime translation, digital reporting can be an effective alternative to law firms that can withstand a 5 day turnaround and save about 40% on transcripts (at least here in Naples, Florida).
Our systems record on multiple channels via lavaliere microphones recorded at 24 bit 192khz audio. Translated into English, that means that our transcriptionists can hear a pin drop, even when attorneys are speaking over one another. And don’t think this is like CourtSmart, each proceeding is individually monitored by a trained digital court reporter. If the transcript is ordered, we THEN compress it for archiving. In fact, a few of our transcriptionists are stenographic court reporters that prefer to work from home because of the convenience and audio clarity.
There is no doubt that we still need stenographic court reporters, but that’s not to say that we can’t use digital reporting as well. Steno is still great for high-end litigation, same day and next day turnaround, and for the hearing impaired. Digital systems that have error rates “as high as” 24 percent shouldn’t have made it into the courtroom.