Examining the value of one word in court reporting
Previously on this blog, we've discussed court reporting services in comparison to some alternatives that have emerged through the development of new technologies. However, in many cases, the advantages of these so-called "advancements" are often outweighed by their glaring faults, especially when looked at in the context of a court room.
In an article for the National Court Reporter's Association (NCRA) website, Kathy Zebert, a certified court reporter, examined the concept of creating a transcript by focusing on something electronic services might miss: one word.
Zebert argues that, when it comes to a trial or deposition, the entire trial can come down to one word. The examples she used was an examination of the differences between a witness saying "I did not see him enter the garage" and "I did see him enter the garage." In this instance, the word "not" is vital. However, if a chair happened to squeak or someone coughed near an electronic recording device, that word "not" easily could have been missed.
With this in mind, Zebert delved into whether it was really worth it for the courts to consider replacing realtime court reporters with a tape recorder when every single word is needed to produce an accurate transcript.
"If your life, liberty, home or family, were at stake, how much value would you place on the absence or presence of one word?" she asked in her post. "Would you entrust these precious things to a machine, or would you trust them to a live person who is specially trained to guard the record and value each and every word spoken?"
When dealing with local cases, Wisconsin court reporters are aware that each word spoken in a deposition or trial environment will be integral to the court transcript that is eventually produced. Additionally, their ability to read from the record during a hearing is an asset that any legal professional can appreciate.
