![[Masthead]](http://www.lemarssentinel.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (5)
Share link
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
GoogleFacing about $15 million in cuts for the current and next year's budget, officials of Iowa's judicial system are looking at what they can cut.
One of the possibilities officials are considering is eliminating court reporters -- stenotype reporters who type a shorthand record of each court proceeding -- and replacing them with digital recording systems in Iowa's courtrooms.
A record is required in all civil and criminal cases except for small claims.
Iowa's chief justice formed a committee to look into digital recording, assessing its reliability, accuracy and what it would cost to buy, install, operate and maintain.
Plymouth County Attorney Darin Raymond was named to that committee.
Five states have switched to electronic recording, he said.
Vermont, Utah and Alaska use all digital audio recording, and New Hampshire does electronic recording with some video, while Kentucky does all video recording.
Other states, like North Dakota and Minnesota, have authorized the use of electronic recording, giving each jurisdiction the option to use it.
The committee has to weigh the pros, cons and unknowns of court reporters versus electronic equipment, Raymond said.
Currently, Iowa's court system is comfortable with the court reporter system, Raymond said.
"The majority of court reporters are assigned to one judge," said Mark Sturgeon, a court reporter in Plymouth County. "It gets to be a working team."
Raymond shared similar thoughts.
"They become the kind of 'right-hand man' for the judge," he said, pointing out court reporters often help the judge they work with outside of the courtroom.
Sturgeon, who's been a court reporter for 24 years, confirmed that.
"They'd have to hire at least one person if they got rid of court reporters just for the extra things I do," he said.
In the courtroom, court reporters use a stenotype to keep a shorthand record, which can then be transcribed to a full record of the court proceedings. Shorthand records are only transcribed if a copy is ordered and paid for by an individual or required for an appeal.
In terms of accuracy, Raymond gave court reporters the highest grade.
"We believe it's probably the best record," he said. "If something is scrambled, the judge or the court reporter will stop and say, "I didn't get that."
"We're not perfect," Sturgeon said. "But we can speak up and say when we didn't hear something or if our machinery isn't working."
A machine couldn't do that, Raymond said.
Digital recordings' strengths lie in the ability to make a separate recording track for each microphone. That way, if two people speak at once, the tracks can be played separate to hear what was said.
However, instances of faulty recordings have occurred. In the written transcription of some recordings, the word "inaudible" is used when the recording machine couldn't pick up clearly what word was spoken.
Court reporters also purchase and maintain their own equipment at no cost to the state, according to information from the Iowa Court Reporters Association. Many court reporters even provide real time transcription, allowing the judge to immediately see the words on a computer screen as they are spoken.
Raymond pointed out that the judicial system's budget is 95 percent salaries and 5 percent other expenses like travel and supplies.
Cutting back the salary portion would be a "pro" on the side of digital recording.
But just going digital might require hiring people as well, Raymond pointed out.
"Doesn't it still take a human being to turn the technology on and off and monitor the microphones?" he asked. "The reality is it still requires a human being to maintain."
In addition, the committee wants to know how time consuming it would be to review a digital audio recording or video recording of a court case.
"If there's a two week murder trial, it's time consuming to read the record," Raymond said. "Would it be more or less time consuming to watch a video of it?"
This month, committee members will begin trying to get those questions answered.
It will be a four-step process, Raymond said.
First, they will invite vendors who specifically sell courtroom recording devices to give presentations and answer questions.
Second, they will decide if field trips to nearby states which use electronic recording are possible. If not, they will teleconference with people who use the electronic systems to gather more information.
Thirdly, the committee will host a public input session, seeking comment from court reporters, trial lawyers, judges and citizens.
Finally, they plan to test an electronic recording system in one jurisdiction in Iowa.
"By December we'll submit to the judicial council our research and thoughts," Raymond said.
The Judicial Council, made up of Iowa's chief judge and the chief judge of each of Iowa's court districts, will ultimately make the decision.
Eliminating court reporters is far from a sure thing, Raymond said.
The judicial system is already making cuts like closing the clerk of courts offices for several extra days and trimming travel expenses.
Federal stimulus dollars are also designated for Iowa's judicial system, but won't be a long-term fix, Raymond said.
The solution, he said, is yet to be determined.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
With digital camera quality becoming ever so compact and efficient, I think that video is going to be much more capable of capturing al of the nuances of individuals in the court room, available to be reveiwed by juries or reviewers. The audio technology has also come a long way and continues to make strides with converting speech to text. Still it has a long way to go for accomodating accents, language, enunciations, and slurs of speech, and even new terminology recognition. Language is ever evolving and this poses problems for recognition. However, speech to text may become more useful for interpretation of other languages. Still it isn't perfect but the equipment continues to shrink in size while growing in capability.
One would hope that the equipment becomes easier to use as it also evolves (just like PC, cell phones, networks, etc have become easier to use by those who do not consider themselves experts). This would allow for the judge to start the system before a case, monitor it passive/attentively depending on how it is being used. This should be a conversion over time at a rate that matches technologies' pace of improvement.
I think the more jobs we cut and replace with machines is just going to hurt us more in the long run. Pretty soon everything we do will be run by a computer and everyone is on welfare, unless your job is creating these new machines of course. Then you should be safe until someone creates a machine that create its own new human replacing machines.
I just think cutting out jobs to replace them with an automated device is not going to help our economy. People need jobs to survive and with everyone doing budget cuts more and more people are losing everything they once had.
A machine, no matter how efficient, cannot ask people to speak up. It cannot ask someone to repeat an answer when someone coughs or shuffles paper next to the microphone. Many times a trial is taking place in the courtroom and another hearing is taking place in chambers or another room with a different Judge. What happens then?
Other jurisdictions have used this equipment, and their appeal transcripts contain a parenthetical (inaudible) where the transcriptionist, who was not present at the hearing, cannot decipher what is being said. In some instances the transcriptionist could not tell who was speaking and had to guess or indicate "unknown speaker." The State may save money by replacing Court Reporters, but at what cost to the accuracy of the record and to the ability to have a fair trial? One expert witness in a trial recently held in Sioux City cost $150,000. Imagine if due to a poor record that trial had to be retried. That cost on that one trial alone would justify maintaining Court Reporters as the most accurate record of court proceedings. It has already been admitted the State would have to hire someone in almost EVERY case to perform the other duties the Court Reporter does for the Judge. There is almost 100 percent opposition to this change by the trial court Judges and attorneys throughout the State. That is because they understand the role the Court Reporter plays in our system of justice. The people who are proposing this change for the most part do not have courtroom experience. What is being proposed here is no different than when a large company terminates a long-time employee at the top of the pay range and replaces him with cheap, young, and often illegal labor, which is all too readily available. Sure they save money, but efficiency, productivity, and morale go right out the window. When the time comes for public input anyone who has even a slightly favorable opinion of the difficult but essential role a Court Reporter plays in our justice system needs to speak up and let Des Moines know some corners cannot be cut just to save a few bucks. Chief Justice Ternus stated no stone will be left unturned in the search for ways to save money, yet I have not heard any proposal to eliminate the law clerks and staff attorneys the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals use to assist in preparing their rulings. I would be willing to bet most people do not know all rulings from the appeals courts are not actually written by the Justices themselves. No stone left unturned? Really? If you're going to make such a statement and attempt such a drastic change as is proposed, at least back it up with an attempt to look at ALL ways to make cuts.
As far as the Judicial Council making the final decision, what about the fact that the Code of Iowa would need to be changed? Thus, the Legislature would need to make the decision?
Just because we have the technology doesn't mean that is the best way to do something. Look at the technological problems they have had with voting machines. Eliminating court reporters will save money how?
1. Court reporters pay for their own equipment and pay to maintain the equipment
2. Court reporters go through rigorous training
3. Someone will have to be paid to monitor the equipment, so if you save money in salary how qualified is that person for such an important job
4. The state will have to pay to maintain the equipment as well as storage of the equipment so money maybe saved in salary would probably be erased by equipment
5. In regards to storage, you will then need a person to keep the equipment as well as "checking" it in and out
6. Did the states using digital recordings doing so to save money or because they couldn't hire and retain qualified court reporters?
7. On digital recordings, the recorder doesn't say "can you speak up". It becomes a dead spot usually with "inaudible" so part of the record is lost
8. Digital media fails. Period. If you don't believe me how often have you had computer problems, cell phone issues, and software issues?
9. Show me a digital record, I can show you a record that can be changed or altered. Period. if you think otherwise you are naive. I can on my desktop alter video and pictures to portray what I want and not what actually happened and I am far from being a pro.
10. Vendors will always say their way is the best way, but they make money only if you continue to buy their services. The state will have to buy software upgrades, patches to fix "bugs", or pay a licensing fee for the software.
These are all issues right off the top of my head and I think this is a horrible idea. If need to save money why not start cutting the salaries of of the state legislators? Make their districts bigger so you need less of them, that is savings right there.