The use of digital recordings for legal depositions and other proceedings has been the subject of much discussion among court reporting professionals. While we understand some of the objections, at Huseby we find that recording technology is a useful tool for court stenographers.
The Problems With Digital Recordings
Part of the issue with this technology is the public perception that a court stenographer is merely a glorified tape recorder. Because of this some courtrooms are trying to replace the certified court reporter with high fidelity audio recordings and this is a practice Huseby does not support.
There is more to documenting the record than simply making a recording. An accurate copy of a mumbled statement is still a mumbled statement. No machine is capable of asking a speaker to repeat a statement, clarify a word or verify the spelling of the subject’s name.
An accurate record often includes more than simply a transcription of a speaker’s words. A court stenographer may have to add notes about a witness’s gestures or other details that a recording won’t pick up. Few courtroom recording setups include a video feed, and even video helps only if the camera is pointed in the right direction at the time.
How Digital Recordings Help Court Reporters
Despite the misuse of the technology, it is a powerful method of enhancing the senses of a court stenographer. Even a skilled reporter with years of experience can still mishear what is said.
Recordings act as backup documents to the official transcribed record. The reporter or a third party can use the recordings to ensure that the transcription is an accurate representation of a person’s testimony. They also help reporters deal with some of the greatest challenges of the profession.
When two or more people speak at the same time, a common occurrence in a heated exchange, a court stenographer must record everyone’s statements accurately. On a multi-track recording, each speaker’s words are recorded separately and the reporter can review each track in isolation to ensure the document is accurate.
Although reporters are entitled to interrupt proceedings to clarify a witness’s statement, ideally we never have to. Reporters can listen to recordings after the fact to verify their transcription of complicated jargon such as medical testimony.
Finally, any transcriptionist knows that sometime it isn’t what a person says but the way he says it. Traditional court stenography records only the words and not the speaker’s tone. The combination of the written words and the digital recording create a more comprehensive record.
Huseby embraces any technology that makes our documentation more accurate or our work easier. Our profession has evolved from shorthand notes scribbled on paper to real time transcription using computer software translation. However we must not forget than technology doesn’t replace human effort. It only enhances it.
