Reply #47: Video all the way, whether depo or in court! [View All]

[puebloknot]

It's important to have video cameras running, whether in a deposition or in open court, rather than relying on the *official transcript* of a proceeding, as produced by a certified court reporter.

I've worked in the court reporting field for 30 years -- as an editor and trainer, not as a court reporter -- and I can testify under oath that court reporters are fallible, and what sometimes has passed as a verbatim transcript has been a fiction that got through because stenographic rendering is like the Latin Mass -- only we who are initiated can read it. And if a reporter swears to a judge that she took it down, it's right, and she stands by her notes, there's been very little that could be done in the past. Attorneys have filed lawsuits over these issues, but the steno notes were the only record, in the past.

For years, some reporters secreted tape recorders in a briefcase because they didn't want to plant a seed that steno reporters might be replaced by a tape recorder. In fact, the human element is very much needed, and just taping has its problems. The court reporter as *part* of the formula is an important issue.

But a new day has now dawned, and unless there is some glitch in the performance of a video camera, the truth is there for all to see, and steno reporters nowadays scurry to get a copy of said video, or at least the audio portion of it, so they can make their final transcripts conform to exactly what was actually said (and not necessarily exactly what they wrote). There is still a requirement for an official court reporter to take down the record, even though a videographer is present, and the videotape or audio recording cannot stand as the official record. There could be exceptions to this, but his is generally the rule.

Steno reporters are fighting tooth and nail, lobbying judges, attorneys, and state legislatures, to keep the "evils" of digital recording (they claim it is an inferior method for making the record) out of courtrooms and deposition suites, while surreptitiously relying heavily on digital recordings to create an accurate record.

To inject a little "conspiracy theory" here, if Cheney were deposed by just the *right* court reporter, under just the *right* circumstances, outside of *open* court, the *official record* could end up being massaged a little here and there. And if the official transcript were used in a trial (following a deposition), references to what was said in the deposition would come from the transcript, and not from the videotape -- unless, of course, a discrepancy was seen and the video was then introduced as an exhibit to the record.

Yes, get that man in open court, with television cameras recording every twitch of that man's body, every bat of his beady eyes, every drool around his lying mouth! And of course, we want an accurate record of every utterance issuing from our unelected VP's mouth! Court reporters are not allowed to "interpret the record," meaning if tears are flowing, it could be from emotion or from allergies. Prior to the use of videotaping, the official transcript with just the *words* was all we had! We want to see the squirming, as well, now don't we?

"Your Honor, will you please instruct His Majesty, the Effing Prince of Darkness, that he is under oath, and to answer the question!"

Sorry! I dozed off there for a while! It was a great dream!