Another View: In Real Life, Court Reporters Count!

From The Sacramento Bee - Published Sunday, May 1, 2011

Re: Court Reporters' Monopoly Must Come to an End" (Editorial, April 26)

The Bee's editorial sounds good on first blush: We are told California could save $100 million a year by switching from certified shorthand court reporters to electronic recording. Electronic recording works well for the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. Why not our trial courts too?

The answer is simple: There is a world of difference between appellate and trial courts. In appellate courts, attorneys stand at a podium and give formal arguments, one person talking at a time. Factual findings were already made in the trial courts, where it is not unusual for several people to be talking at once.

The trial lawyer is not finished with her question but the witness is already answering; while opposing counsel interposes an objection. This happens every day.

Court reporters sort this out or have the speaker repeat something missed. They get the complete testimony of the timid or mumbling witness, for which electronic recording cannot be relied upon. The court reporter also augments the record – noting if the witness cries, nods or shakes his head.

And in real trials people move around: Counsel approaches the witness – witness steps down and sketches a diagram – attorney retrieves exhibits from the evidence table, and so on. The court reporter tracks all of this, stopping proceedings to clarify as necessary.

Finally, the court reporter can immediately read back testimony on request, such as an answer given the previous day or two weeks ago. Most courtrooms also have the reporter's live transcript displayed upon the judge's bench. Counsel in complex cases can have transcripts prepared to review the next day. The deliberating jury can have the court reporter read back specific testimony on request.

The Bee's editorial noted the Sacramento Superior Court currently uses electronic reporting in traffic court and misdemeanor arraignment courts. From this The Bee concludes electronic reporting should work well in trials too. Instead, it reflects our court's experience concerning where electronic reporting is useful and where it is not – where it works and where it doesn't.

The Bee's call to eliminate court reporters sounds good – until you ask someone familiar with real life trials. Just ask people who try the cases. Virtually every judge, district attorney or defendants' counsel will tell you court reporters are essential to ensuring an adequate trial record.

THE SACRAMENTO BEE

Judge Steve White is the presiding judge of Sacramento Superior Court.