In the courtroom, there’s no substitute for court reporting services
In most industries, it seems as though new technologies nearly always provide an easier, simpler method to perform tasks that were often performed previously by hand. However, one such instance where the classic method is the superior option is when comparing a certified court reporter to electric reporting technologies.
A column in the Modesto Bee looked in depth into the topic and examined the downfalls that come with the efficiency of electronic services versus having someone staffed at the position. The column, written by a courtroom reporter named Kristi Garcia, states that, while electronic services provide a fast, unmanned option, they encounter many issues when forced to deal with the intricacies of realtime court reporting. In addition, she claims that court reporters actually save money when compared to electronic recordings, due to the costs of equipment and staffing to go through and transcribe recordings.
The main issue that arises with automatic services is when dealing with instances where staffers going through recordings struggle to hear what was said and were not present in the court, leaving them to record a word or phrase as "inaudible" or "unintelligible." According to Garcia in her column, though, a certified court reporter has the experience and expertise to hear what was said when lawyers communicate quietly with their clients.
"Court reporters are the technology the courts need," Garcia writes. "They are the guardian of the written record in our trial courts. They ensure access to justice to all the citizens in our state. Court reporters are and will continue to be the stellar and cost-effective way to run a technology-based courtroom."
Although recording technologies continue to improve, it's difficult to replicate the presence of a Wisconsin court reporter at a trial or deposition, especially when dealing with low-volume exchanges, in terms of accuracy and speed of the transcript.
