y
of expa below.
ltime
Excerpt from Computer-Aided Transcription: Current Technology and Court
rmission from the
nd 3) the cost of the record. It is unlikely at skeptical judges and court managers will be persuaded to recognize
s are addressed.
s
wyers for
stenotype notes in both the traditional printed form nd in digital form on computer disks. The unique feature of CAT over all
ther m ed
in rds hem in an
participate effectively in court
roceedings. If the unedited notes of CAT writers serve these purposes, nding the usability of the record, the rationale for the recommendation is reproduced
The Rationale for New Policy Regarding the Unedited Notes of Rea Reporters
Applications, National Center for State Courts, 1994 (Reprinted with pe National Center for State Courts.)
Three factors in addition of accuracy are important to the
consumers of reporting services: 1) what form the record is in, 2) how quickly the record is available, a
th
the benefits of accelerating the growth of realtime reporting in CICs unless all three factor
The form of the record – the argument for legitimizing unedited note Two forms of the record have traditionally been set in competition with one another: tape recordings and written records. Written records are universally preferred over tape recordings by judges and la
two reasons: 1) The medium of written language is usually sufficient to preserve facts that are salient to trial and appellate practice; and 2) audi visual media are inconvenient to use. With the introduction of
computerized word processing and CAT, written records can be produced from either tapes of
a
o ethods is the introduction of the newest record form, the unedit notes of reporters.
When unedited notes are obtained from a skilled reporter, they serve many of the purposes for which trial attorneys and trial judges require transcripts because they capture the salient facts. We have seen examples of unedited notes that were virtually unblemished and others that were rougher, but nevertheless very useful. The rationale for CICs, fact, is that the realtime notes of the reporter are so close to the standa required for an official record that judges and lawyers can use t
equivalent fashion. For example, they are good enough to afford equal protection of the rights of deaf and hard-of-hearing people who rely on them in order to understand and
p
there seems no reason why they should not be afforded a legitimate status in court policy and rules.
els
d e robably necessary for reporters to build their skills, this does not require
t
e skill signifies that a reporter has acquired sufficient roficiency with CAT-compatible writing style, and with the command
te in realtime. It is reasonable to suppose that with experience most reporters
Using realtime translation, experienced CAT writers achieve more
practice among reporters to improve their skills, not necessarily more rooms. Courts need not invest in CICs in order to get benefits of realtime, although CICs use realtime to its highest advantage.
Records that are immediately available require realtime skill lev Realtime skill is the necessary condition for legitimizing unedite notes. In order to take advantage of this benefit, however, it is not necessary, as is conventionally believed, that reporters actually produc realtime output as they write. While experience in writing realtime is p
additional financial investment by either the reporter or the court once reporters have upgraded their CAT systems to industry standards.
“Realtime skill level” means different things in different contexts: I can mean certification by NCRA as a result of passing a test, and it can mean writing realtime routinely in a CIC. A third meaning is one we believe should acquire more acceptance, because it gets at the heart of the matter: Realtim
p
structure of CAT software, so that notes can be printed and used without additional editing.
Because most CAT reporters do not actually write in realtime, the quality of their unedited copy is untested. There is no way to tell how many reporters write notes that are good enough to be used without additional editing. The findings of this study, however, suggest that the number is greater than the number of reporters who actually wri
could learn to write at or near this realtime skill level. This point of view is shared by others who recognize the strategic potential of CAT:
than 98 percent accuracy, enough for complete comprehension (Justice Research Institute, 1992, p.11)
The key to making transcripts immediately available, then, is more computers in court
Transcript costs
Transcripts that reporters currently make are not the least
expensive form of the record available. At an average cost of $2.00 per page, a 200-page transcript (one trial-day) costs $400. A substitute for written transcript – a videotape recording of the same proceeding – generally costs the party no more than $25, and audiotapes cost even less. As we have observed before, however, factors other than lowest cost take precedence in cost and benefit assessments. A tape recording of a proceeding is not the form that consumers of the record prefer. Using
es or
just like tape recordings, always had to be transcribed in order to make them
cript fees therefore are also unaffected by CAT reporting.
Attorneys must continue to purchase an official record, at either daily copy r ordinary transcript rates, depending on how quickly they want it.
ore, that policy should be adjusted so that a differential pricing structure for unedited and official records can be
e. Yet few courts have even begun to take advantage of what is possible. Jurisdictions desiring to enhance the value of their services by taking advantage of today’s possibilities will have to assess their current infrastructure. Many will no doubt find that the foundation is already
tape recordings requires special equipment, takes more time than reading a transcript and requires new work habits. The question raised by this study, however, is whether unedited notes of reporters might not in some cases be a less-expensive substitute for high-cost official transcript, given the alternative that CAT reporting makes possible.
Transcript rates are generally established in statute, court rul local policy and do not vary according to the method used to produce the transcript. Indeed, until the emergence of realtime reporting, there was no reason to differentiate transcript rates. Unedited notes of reporters,
intelligible or useful to their consumers. Since there is no provision in court policy or unofficial practice to legitimize the unedited notes of reporters, trans
o
Our analysis suggests, theref established.77