Brief Comments from Attorneys and Judges
Judge Jodi L. Williamson of Minnesota's Third Judicial District detailed her court's experience in a letter dated February 26, 2007, and concluded:
"While I currently employ an electronic reporter, I periodically work with stenographic reporters. I find both reporting methods to be highly accurate.
"The State of Minnesota makes no distinction between the reporting methods. Since their job responsibilities are identical, electronic and stenographic reporters are included in the same job classification and both methods receive the same salary, benefits, and professional courtesies. . . . The positions are interchangeable."
To read Judge Williamson's complete remarks, click here.
Bar Notes (San Fernando Valley, California, Bar Association), February 1998, (page 3, President's Message):
"While no one doubts the necessity of Certified Shorthand Reporters (Court Reporters), practice and experience dictates that there be more modern, responsive, and less expensive methods of recording Court proceedings.... In this, the Electronic Generation, we must look to technology to help save time and costs so as to make our Courts more accessible to the general public and move towards a more efficient and cost-productive Court system."
A letter written to Assembly Member Bill Morrow regarding the use of electronic court reporting by Judge Richard G. Harris, Santa Monica, California, May 14, 1998:
"With electronic reporting, when the record is read back, you hear the actual voices of the attorneys and witnesses and their inflections rather than a dry reading of the record."
A letter to Senator Quentin Kopp regarding the use of electronic court reporting by Sue Berry, President of The Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., (ACES), Sacramento, California, May 20, 1998:
"In most states, it is standard practice to use audio and/or video recordings as a way to record the events of routine family law hearings. These recordings are less expensive to produce and reproduce and freeing those resources for other vital services."
A letter to the California Legislature regarding the use of electronic court reporting by Scott Gailen, Esq., Woodland Hills, California, May 14, 1998:
"[W]ith the electronic recording system, you can order a tape and receive it within one or two days for $10.00. There is no question as to what was said. There is no question as to when you will receive it. The program has made it easier on the litigant to enforce his or her rights, and it has made the system more efficient."
Letter to Assembly Member Bill Morrow regarding the use of electronic court reporting by Judge Laurence D. Rubin, Santa Monica Municipal Court, Santa Monica, California, May 28, 1998:
"In heavy-calendar courts, with little need for transcripts or the reading of testimony, electronic court reporting is usually an efficient, cost-effective method of recording court hearings. In those instances, electronic monitoring provides an adequate safety net for the few cases where transcription is required, or when a transcript is not necessary the judge can simply listen to the tape recording of prior proceedings."