UK. I was on a jury and we got dismissed because of the cutting of an audio recording. Clearly the lawyers had agreed a certain amount of the recording was just pure fact, no wishy washy bits that could be interpreted. Unfortunately, the court gave us an unredacted copy for the deliberation room, which included some audio that was open to debate that neither side wanted us to consider. When they realised it, we got dismissed and it went to retrial.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the court itself would have to pay for the retrial (basically, in the event of a mistrial caused by either party or the court, the party responsible has to pay for the new trial).
Stories like this just reinforce my belief that the judicial system is broken. If you don't want the jury to interpret the evidence, then you don't want them to actually make an informed decision.
@@edbangor9163 The mere fact that you aren't allowed to know about law in the first place shows that well enough. If you are called for jury duty, and in prepartion phase ask some specific questions, they will just say that you can't be on that jury and they will find somebody else.
@@SchilaniI dont think that holds true least in the US. There were two lawyers on Trump's NY jury. So maybe its specific types of lawyers not lawyers in general. i.e. a former prosecuter likely cant serve
@@kitwhite2640 I was actually more referring to laymen knowing specific things, like the right to basically ignore everything on the table and give an innocent verdict, just because they don't want to see somebody behind bars, even tho the person is definitely guilty. Also, bigger cases are probably treated differently anyway. And I wouldn't put it past them, to specifically try to find people, that wanted to find Trump guilty. That's just how politics works.
It wouldn't end up mumbly, just inaccurate. Court reporters don't record audio, they type words on a specialized computer that makes it easier for them to write fast.
@atlasleblanc1111 but he wasn't talking about the reporter recording audio? I thought he meant "it's better that the transcript is perfect than there not being tons of background mumblings and questions from the reporter"
Maybe not a court reporter, but a foreign language interpreter here: sometimes I will ask someone to slow down and speak up so I can hear them clearly, because they were not only racing but also mumbling and speaking so chaotically I had to guess what they were trying to say, which is unacceptable. The person said yes, started speaking a touch slower and louder, before devolving back to their initial manner of speaking within the same sentence. Remember: you always understand what you're saying. That doesn't mean that what you're saying is understandable
Certified reporter here. To my friends, asking why we cannot be replaced with AI. It's a really simple reason. They are attempting to but the AI sucks. It's not at all consistent at producing a verbatim transcript time in and time out. A court reporter is required to write at a maximum of 225 words per minute to be state certified but more than not the word speed is 200 words per minute. Requirements will vary per your given state. So then, why don't you just write faster? Personally, I think reporters should obtain certificates where they would have to test at higher speed levels however that is not a mandate in any state. Now, in regards to the attorney flow, a reporters fundamental duty is to protect the record from being jeopardized. If the record gets fucked up, it's our ass on the line not anyone else's. And I promise you any reporter that has half a brain will never trust an attorney to say my bad partly because that's just stupid but more so that would be displaying a lack of impartiality. And ironically the people who are in the most danger of jeopardizing the record are the people who are shaping it. So those people are going to be attorneys, witnesses, and judges with the exception of a few other officials I have not named. So if the reporter was constantly interrupting him, there was potentially a reason for it. Another possibility could be it is a new reporter. Why is a new reporter handling a deposition where they are clearly, you might think, out of their league? Some deposition firms are assholes and will put new reporters on assignments they shouldn't because they don't give a shit about them or the clients they're supposed to be putting the deposition together for. Now, in defense of the attorney, a good reporter already understands that someone going into a deposition is going to fight. It can be frustrating if you're on a good one and a reporter has to interrupt you constantly. However, it's going to be even more frustrating if your record is dog shit, and the only person you're going to get pissy at is the reporter. Just some food for thought.
I have a question that may be dumb, but why not audio record the proceedings and then type it up after the fact? Or audio record and then compare the recording to the typed up record to ensure there are no mistakes?
@@jasonutty52Many court reporters will do the latter, however audio recordings are highly fallible. Mumbling, unclear statements, or unanticipated background noise can disrupt real-time audio in a way that makes it impossible to recover. Additionally, depositions frequently include ‘readbacks’ where an attorney will ask for a prior statement or question to be re-read or repeated.
Wrong lmao. Aint gotta read all that to say that you are incorrect about "AI" transcripts. Just boot up teams and start a meeting with anyone. It's able to transcribe into english through even the thickest of accents so yeah your days are numbered 😂😂😂
@@buildman126 Probably not. Reporters aren’t just there to transcribe, it also creates accountability for the veracity of the transcription by making a human person responsible for it.
Our certification exam tests our accuracy at 200 words per minute. If you speak faster than that, a reporter -- especially a newly licensed one -- may not be able to keep up. We are required to interrupt for accuracy sake anytime we miss something because someone was talking too fast, mumbling, speaking over each other, etc.
I think there might be the exception to the rule…especially if this isn’t typical in an attorney’s experience, where the CR might just not be up to par. Either, in that particular day maybe something is happening in their lives that’s upsetting or they didn’t get very good sleep… or, like you said, brand new & nervous, outside of a testing environment, all responsibility upon their shoulders & in deficit of any real experience. -With the example this attorney gave…seems pretty straight forward. A seasoned attorney that I’m assuming understands each point and position within a court room, is asking single sentenced questions, receiving single word answers…and the CR is interrupting at the buildup, final question? Ooof. I’m sure this guy has the record to prove he understands the basic needs of a CR…or…he’s full of himself and mistaken, never improving on his end.
Retired Court Reporter here. I understand your point of view. You've got that momentum and are hitting your stride! I've reported for some excellent lawyers in complex cases who know how to get their point across, get the answers they need, debate calmly with the opposition with cutting finesse. Just beautiful to watch and take part. That being said, as a CR, it is our job to produce an accurate, verbatim record as part of the legal team. If a court reporter is interrupting that often, someone isn't doing their job, and it's most likely not the court reporter. Are they asking the witness to repeat, speak up? Is the attorney speeding through his words? Is there mumbling, voice dropping off at the end of sentences? It really is up to the attorney, if there are multiple interruptions, to control the situation. Talk slower, louder, ask the witness to talk slower, speak up. Be mindful of what exactly the reporter is trying to accomplish as an important part of the legal system. I understand being in the zone and the total mental concentration you need to get what you need from the witness. But ultimately, Counsel, it is YOUR record and it will be only as good or bad as YOU make it. The court reporter is your partner, not your enemy. It sounds like they had interrupted several times before that penultimate question in which you had opportunity to fix whatever was happening that caused the reporter difficulty in getting an accurate record. Had you not stopped and thought where the difficulty lay? Asked the reporter if they needed the witness closer or to remove their hand from their mouth? You could also get a reporter who sits quiet through the entire proceeding and end up with a worthless transcript or video filled with (inaudible) remarks that was a waste of your client's money. Up to you.
The record is important... In fact it's so important that the court reporter is sworn to keep it in a way that nobody else can. If you don't want to be interrupted, speak up and speak clearly.
I’m teaching myself stenography right now while at the same time studying to be eventually be a court reporter. In the research I’ve been doing, it seems a lot of aspiring reporters’ issue is lacking typing speed (180 WPM is the bare minimum), so it may be possible she just wasn’t very fast and needed to keep up.
Isn't this why most court reporters do an audio transcript and not just stenography, plus are trained to note names or technical terms unfamiliar to them, and ask lawyers or parties to spell them out after if it's a deposition, or find them on other documents if a court session? I wouldn't want lawyers, doctors, or court reporters, on a trial that considered emotional responses to malfunctioning HVAC systems, who couldn't distinguish meaning, never mind spelling, for entropy, enthalphy, and empathy. I know very few lawyers or Psychologists who have that literacy and competency.
Good that she does that. Courts should not be about "the flow" and how convincing the lawyers are. It should be about the facts. But because you use 12 random people to make a judgement call on something they know nothing about, you can influence them with emotions. I am so happy I come from a properly functioning country where judges make the judgements and not the US or UK.
The only thing I know is that if I'm ever on trial for any crime I don't want a single smoker in the jury pool because they're going to want that cigarette more than they're going to want my Justice
Attorney: DAAHW! Your Honor, she's throwing off my groove! Judge: Im sorry Susan, but you've thrown off the attorney's groove. *nods to balliff* Ballif: *Yeets Susan out the courthouse window.*
That's why all court systems should be mandated to have at least audio recordings. They are expensive to put in, but they are often way less than even a starting court reporters salary. It saves the government money, creates a better, more accurate record, plus you can also get it with video, which is all bonus. A court reporter is unfortunately unable to get "sass" or attitude from ones spoken word. You need an audio recording and video to gather the full context of the situation. Believe it or not, but these situations do arise and having every bit of the audio and video record will always be way better than a court reporter transcript. Of course, we still need transcribers to convert the audio recording to written transcripts for some court systems, so they can still be useful, they just aren't a good solution to recording the official record.
It is probably a perfectly competent court reporter. I have met far more attorneys that cannot help themsleves to slow down (even after multiple admonishments) than reporters that are “terrible.” Oddly enough, lawyers who talk too fast are the only people I have ever met that have complained about court reporters, go figure..
Omg, so funny!! I was in a deposition, someone had gotten injured at work. The lawyer would ask the question and I would answer immediately or speak too fast and the recorder (person) kept interrupting me and telling me to wait and slow down so she could type it out. I was already pizzed i had to be there since i wasnt involved. I was just the person who received the call about the injury. And her stopping me every time just made it worse. I wanted to theow things at her.
I would stop answering and request a recorder that was competent. Or I'd tell the lawyer to write his questions and I'd answer in writing since the recorder wasn't capable.
@@robchang4410 But often a simple yes or no is not "the whole truth". Also, when the question is open like, Where were you on the date in question? or "Who did you call immediately after the falling space debris struck your grandmother?"
The flow should always be broken/interrupted. Now counsel should be allowed to get momentum, on either side. Each question should stand on its own, and each answer should be honest and well thought out. Every court reporter or stenographer should chime in periodically, even if they don’t need to.
And I understand it’s probably a hearing issue and an understanding issue totally or more likely. However, it could be nefarious, trying to break the role of questions and the flow as well.
If the person cannot hear, it is doubtful a recording device can pick it up. Some people are just mumbles or speed talkers who can't finish a word, sentence, or thought. A recorder isn't going to fix that.
Noted. If im ever on jury duty for anything but a crime on children or spouses, Im going to ask "is everything we've beem showm in these videos able to be considered?" And the moment I get "yes", Im going to refuse to convict, as these statements have cut parts, and I dont know if theyre against or in favor of the defendant. And Im going to do jurry nullification without having to say "I did it for moral reasons I already said wouldnt be a problem"
They'll bring out the transcript the court reporter made. A lot of times, they're timestamped to match the recording. Reporters even write down that they interrupted. So they'll just point out that the jumps in the video correspond with the interruptions on the transcript.
@@jasmin2974 if the crime is one that Im morally opposed to sending somebody to prison for? Absolutely. Im going to take whatever ground I can to push for jury nullification WITHOUT saying so. Defandants have a better shot after a hung jury. Both in the second trial AND in plea deals that come up between the two.
@@jasmin2974 and lets look at what you said honestly. Waste a judge's time? Hes getting paid. The delay is only a few hours. Maybe days. If theres a hung jury, its a new judge. The first judge got paid for his work. The second judge will get paid for his work. Meanwhile, depending on the state, the defendant could be looking at YEARS for selling weed. Yeah. Until most defendants in victimless crimes say "I would have preferred you found me guilty than give me a second chance at a trial", Im gonna waste the time of the folks freely choosing to get paid for participating in the justice system. "But tax dollars". If youre mad, make laws that have high rates of jury nullification illegal. Its a democratic republic. Put up or shut up. Vote for the folks who are against charges for victimless crimes. If youre like me and realize that representatives dont and dont HAVE to listen to their constituents, jury nullification is our last stand against unjust laws. Im wasting time for people being paid for their time. And giving second chances to people facing years of confinement (and lifelong restrictions of rights after confinement) to folks who are praying that people like me exist.
I get it. I did college debate - similar in a lot of ways. Request to scream at top of lungs sustained, counselor. ...They let you request another stenographer? Maybe you ain't the first person with "concerns".
The worse court reporters are ones who don't record things. Or in one of Steve Lehto's cases, the reporter CHANGED THE ANSWER! When a witness lied on the stand, he tried to impeach them with their prior deposition testimony. But the court reporter had written "no" instead of "yes" when recording the deposition, which screwed things up!
Having done interpreting, may things can "garble" speech as @SaltSpirits said , not speaking loud enough, and also when speaking too fast, the speaker fails to enunciate, a chair scraping the floor, a persistent cough from someone in the room, a door or bench creaking. Also, it's not uncommon for people who spend a lot of time in court to mumble.
Lawyers often talk fast. Lawyers often talk even faster when they are excited. Lawyers talk at their absolute fastest when they are conducting an examination of a witness that is, somehow, able to match their pace. I have seen numerous attorneys absolutely tear through depositions (especially expert depositions) at an absurd pace despite multiple admonations by the reporter to slow down. It’s very common, and not at all suspect-lawyers just talk fast sometimes.
Courts have gotten in the habit of not creating voice recordings of the proceeding as a backup in addition to the one created by the court reporter and their data entry device. Why I do not know.
It’s called being a bad lawyer. You need to slow down and speak clearer and wait for the witness to answer the question before you start with your next question.
With the technology that we have now, there's no need for a court reporter to type everything down. All you need is someone to sit there and make sure the parties don't conspire to leave things off the recording.
So why have we not gone to a digital voice recording of the court rooms? It’s gotta be cheaper than having court reporters and storing physical typed pages.
Rythym & tempo. Makes sense RE shortened vids for the jury trial otherwise the juries & judges would drown in info saturation. Like, "here's the 30 seconds where so&so ran the red light while texting & t boned my client"
You realize it could have been like her first week on the job or anything else like that. Like give her a break court reporting's one of the hardest jobs cuz you can't miss a single word
"So did you do it?"
"Yes"
In the words of Zack Oyama “Yeah, I killed him”
Uh uh. Not guilty.
"Wait, what was that? Did he say he did it?"
"Uh.. depends on what 'it' were talking about."
" Scratch that, reverse it! "
"You threw off the lawyers groove."
LMAO i really appreciate this comment
*Proceeds to get tackled by the bailiff*
My brain went here too. Made my comment then saw yours.
@@TheQuilavaQueen And tossed out a window
Stoled his mojo
UK. I was on a jury and we got dismissed because of the cutting of an audio recording. Clearly the lawyers had agreed a certain amount of the recording was just pure fact, no wishy washy bits that could be interpreted. Unfortunately, the court gave us an unredacted copy for the deliberation room, which included some audio that was open to debate that neither side wanted us to consider. When they realised it, we got dismissed and it went to retrial.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the court itself would have to pay for the retrial (basically, in the event of a mistrial caused by either party or the court, the party responsible has to pay for the new trial).
Stories like this just reinforce my belief that the judicial system is broken. If you don't want the jury to interpret the evidence, then you don't want them to actually make an informed decision.
@@edbangor9163 The mere fact that you aren't allowed to know about law in the first place shows that well enough. If you are called for jury duty, and in prepartion phase ask some specific questions, they will just say that you can't be on that jury and they will find somebody else.
@@SchilaniI dont think that holds true least in the US. There were two lawyers on Trump's NY jury. So maybe its specific types of lawyers not lawyers in general.
i.e. a former prosecuter likely cant serve
@@kitwhite2640 I was actually more referring to laymen knowing specific things, like the right to basically ignore everything on the table and give an innocent verdict, just because they don't want to see somebody behind bars, even tho the person is definitely guilty.
Also, bigger cases are probably treated differently anyway. And I wouldn't put it past them, to specifically try to find people, that wanted to find Trump guilty. That's just how politics works.
I was hearing court reporter and thought: "isn't that a stenographer?"
Yes, but with more options basically.
As a legal transcriber, that sounds like one of my nightmares. 😂
I'd say having a court reporter mishear and then record wrong is worse than a recording being mumbly.
It wouldn't end up mumbly, just inaccurate. Court reporters don't record audio, they type words on a specialized computer that makes it easier for them to write fast.
@@Smorkulon Yes, that's what I said. Better to have mumbly recordings rather than possibly inaccurate stenographers.
@atlasleblanc1111 but he wasn't talking about the reporter recording audio? I thought he meant "it's better that the transcript is perfect than there not being tons of background mumblings and questions from the reporter"
You should try turning on the sound. Mike definitely does NOT mumble.
Maybe not a court reporter, but a foreign language interpreter here: sometimes I will ask someone to slow down and speak up so I can hear them clearly, because they were not only racing but also mumbling and speaking so chaotically I had to guess what they were trying to say, which is unacceptable. The person said yes, started speaking a touch slower and louder, before devolving back to their initial manner of speaking within the same sentence. Remember: you always understand what you're saying. That doesn't mean that what you're saying is understandable
Not only that, it can be hard to understand someone when they're crying, angry, nervous, fidgety.
@deamery6207 exactly!
Certified reporter here.
To my friends, asking why we cannot be replaced with AI. It's a really simple reason. They are attempting to but the AI sucks. It's not at all consistent at producing a verbatim transcript time in and time out. A court reporter is required to write at a maximum of 225 words per minute to be state certified but more than not the word speed is 200 words per minute. Requirements will vary per your given state.
So then, why don't you just write faster? Personally, I think reporters should obtain certificates where they would have to test at higher speed levels however that is not a mandate in any state.
Now, in regards to the attorney flow, a reporters fundamental duty is to protect the record from being jeopardized.
If the record gets fucked up, it's our ass on the line not anyone else's. And I promise you any reporter that has half a brain will never trust an attorney to say my bad partly because that's just stupid but more so that would be displaying a lack of impartiality. And ironically the people who are in the most danger of jeopardizing the record are the people who are shaping it. So those people are going to be attorneys, witnesses, and judges with the exception of a few other officials I have not named. So if the reporter was constantly interrupting him, there was potentially a reason for it. Another possibility could be it is a new reporter. Why is a new reporter handling a deposition where they are clearly, you might think, out of their league? Some deposition firms are assholes and will put new reporters on assignments they shouldn't because they don't give a shit about them or the clients they're supposed to be putting the deposition together for. Now, in defense of the attorney, a good reporter already understands that someone going into a deposition is going to fight. It can be frustrating if you're on a good one and a reporter has to interrupt you constantly. However, it's going to be even more frustrating if your record is dog shit, and the only person you're going to get pissy at is the reporter. Just some food for thought.
Same with interpreters!
I have a question that may be dumb, but why not audio record the proceedings and then type it up after the fact?
Or audio record and then compare the recording to the typed up record to ensure there are no mistakes?
@@jasonutty52Many court reporters will do the latter, however audio recordings are highly fallible. Mumbling, unclear statements, or unanticipated background noise can disrupt real-time audio in a way that makes it impossible to recover. Additionally, depositions frequently include ‘readbacks’ where an attorney will ask for a prior statement or question to be re-read or repeated.
Wrong lmao. Aint gotta read all that to say that you are incorrect about "AI" transcripts. Just boot up teams and start a meeting with anyone. It's able to transcribe into english through even the thickest of accents so yeah your days are numbered 😂😂😂
@@buildman126 Probably not. Reporters aren’t just there to transcribe, it also creates accountability for the veracity of the transcription by making a human person responsible for it.
Our certification exam tests our accuracy at 200 words per minute. If you speak faster than that, a reporter -- especially a newly licensed one -- may not be able to keep up. We are required to interrupt for accuracy sake anytime we miss something because someone was talking too fast, mumbling, speaking over each other, etc.
I think there might be the exception to the rule…especially if this isn’t typical in an attorney’s experience, where the CR might just not be up to par. Either, in that particular day maybe something is happening in their lives that’s upsetting or they didn’t get very good sleep… or, like you said, brand new & nervous, outside of a testing environment, all responsibility upon their shoulders & in deficit of any real experience. -With the example this attorney gave…seems pretty straight forward. A seasoned attorney that I’m assuming understands each point and position within a court room, is asking single sentenced questions, receiving single word answers…and the CR is interrupting at the buildup, final question? Ooof. I’m sure this guy has the record to prove he understands the basic needs of a CR…or…he’s full of himself and mistaken, never improving on his end.
@@ec9833Huh?
"and you got the witness going 'YES! YES! YES! YES!!"
is this "witness" laying on a couch by any chance??
Retired Court Reporter here. I understand your point of view. You've got that momentum and are hitting your stride! I've reported for some excellent lawyers in complex cases who know how to get their point across, get the answers they need, debate calmly with the opposition with cutting finesse. Just beautiful to watch and take part.
That being said, as a CR, it is our job to produce an accurate, verbatim record as part of the legal team. If a court reporter is interrupting that often, someone isn't doing their job, and it's most likely not the court reporter. Are they asking the witness to repeat, speak up? Is the attorney speeding through his words? Is there mumbling, voice dropping off at the end of sentences?
It really is up to the attorney, if there are multiple interruptions, to control the situation. Talk slower, louder, ask the witness to talk slower, speak up. Be mindful of what exactly the reporter is trying to accomplish as an important part of the legal system.
I understand being in the zone and the total mental concentration you need to get what you need from the witness. But ultimately, Counsel, it is YOUR record and it will be only as good or bad as YOU make it. The court reporter is your partner, not your enemy. It sounds like they had interrupted several times before that penultimate question in which you had opportunity to fix whatever was happening that caused the reporter difficulty in getting an accurate record. Had you not stopped and thought where the difficulty lay? Asked the reporter if they needed the witness closer or to remove their hand from their mouth?
You could also get a reporter who sits quiet through the entire proceeding and end up with a worthless transcript or video filled with (inaudible) remarks that was a waste of your client's money. Up to you.
Umm…so never ever is a CR just not up to par?
@@ec9833 Never said that. We all have our off days. :)
Opposing lawyers: "Oh great, so we don't have to object to break up the rhythm."
Here in Quebec we just audio record the trial then the transcript is made at a later date.
Bad Court Reporter is my band's new name. 👍
Your honor, permission to play Kendrick Lamar’s “B*tch Don’t Kill My Vibe?”
Oh dear god, the horror of... _checks notes_ having to make sure everyone understands you?
Sounds like a good court reporter, actually. If the court reporter can't understand you, what makes you think the jury can?
Exactly!
Because of how court rooms are set up. He would be right by the jury, the court reporter would not be.
Court reporters have an obligation to the record.
In 2024 why are court reporters needed when you can easily record the entire thing?
You see he's familiar with shooting scenes because he played Lamplighter in The Boys
Thank you for the information!!
Continuity is important. If it's interrupted, it will fuck up everything.
You are darn right i ordered a code red
The record is important... In fact it's so important that the court reporter is sworn to keep it in a way that nobody else can. If you don't want to be interrupted, speak up and speak clearly.
I’m teaching myself stenography right now while at the same time studying to be eventually be a court reporter. In the research I’ve been doing, it seems a lot of aspiring reporters’ issue is lacking typing speed (180 WPM is the bare minimum), so it may be possible she just wasn’t very fast and needed to keep up.
Isn't this why most court reporters do an audio transcript and not just stenography, plus are trained to note names or technical terms unfamiliar to them, and ask lawyers or parties to spell them out after if it's a deposition, or find them on other documents if a court session?
I wouldn't want lawyers, doctors, or court reporters, on a trial that considered emotional responses to malfunctioning HVAC systems, who couldn't distinguish meaning, never mind spelling, for entropy, enthalphy, and empathy. I know very few lawyers or Psychologists who have that literacy and competency.
Introducing... The worlds best court reporter....
THE MICROPHONE!!!!!!!! 🎉🎉🎉
When the lawyer asks the *witness* if they did it and they just go "yeah" 💀💀💀
Good that she does that. Courts should not be about "the flow" and how convincing the lawyers are. It should be about the facts. But because you use 12 random people to make a judgement call on something they know nothing about, you can influence them with emotions. I am so happy I come from a properly functioning country where judges make the judgements and not the US or UK.
and more importantly is going to give hostile witnesses time to compose themselves.
As a court Reporter you are required to be able to be able to listen and type at an incredibly fast speed
The only thing I know is that if I'm ever on trial for any crime I don't want a single smoker in the jury pool because they're going to want that cigarette more than they're going to want my Justice
Come on Susan!! _Sharpen up!_
You couldn't pick the time-honored "Jane" could you? Nope, had to go with Susan. Thanks, counsellor. 🙄
Oh boo hoo. Somebody messed up your evil lawyer's trick
When I have done Jury duty we would spend AGES waiting for people to find their time stamps lol
As a "Susan"... I'm offended.😂
Just holding true to the sign of the current times.🤗😆
My sister-in-Law used to be a court reporter. They have to keep track of everything or they get fired. Disagree with this video. 👎
Keep an eye out for her book "How to Lose a Great Stenography Gig" by Susan
You should be allowed to bring a soundboard so if something like that happens you could play “wah wah”. 😅
Ugh.. Susan.
Have that court reporter fired. Unless you want her again.
The judge needs to have a discussion with Susan, she's been terrible lately.
That one should never have been a court reporter.
Attorney: DAAHW! Your Honor, she's throwing off my groove!
Judge: Im sorry Susan, but you've thrown off the attorney's groove. *nods to balliff*
Ballif: *Yeets Susan out the courthouse window.*
Ugh, *Susan*.
susan gonna be sad when speech to text takes her job
so you were outsmarted by the other lawyer
That's why all court systems should be mandated to have at least audio recordings. They are expensive to put in, but they are often way less than even a starting court reporters salary. It saves the government money, creates a better, more accurate record, plus you can also get it with video, which is all bonus. A court reporter is unfortunately unable to get "sass" or attitude from ones spoken word. You need an audio recording and video to gather the full context of the situation. Believe it or not, but these situations do arise and having every bit of the audio and video record will always be way better than a court reporter transcript.
Of course, we still need transcribers to convert the audio recording to written transcripts for some court systems, so they can still be useful, they just aren't a good solution to recording the official record.
As someone who knows I have shit hearing, I should never be a court reporter/stenographer.
That is a terrible quality court reporter
It is probably a perfectly competent court reporter. I have met far more attorneys that cannot help themsleves to slow down (even after multiple admonishments) than reporters that are “terrible.” Oddly enough, lawyers who talk too fast are the only people I have ever met that have complained about court reporters, go figure..
Omg, so funny!! I was in a deposition, someone had gotten injured at work. The lawyer would ask the question and I would answer immediately or speak too fast and the recorder (person) kept interrupting me and telling me to wait and slow down so she could type it out. I was already pizzed i had to be there since i wasnt involved. I was just the person who received the call about the injury. And her stopping me every time just made it worse. I wanted to theow things at her.
I would stop answering and request a recorder that was competent. Or I'd tell the lawyer to write his questions and I'd answer in writing since the recorder wasn't capable.
maybe you should stick to YES or NO answer to make it easier on the "recorder (person)"
@@robchang4410 But often a simple yes or no is not "the whole truth".
Also, when the question is open like, Where were you on the date in question? or "Who did you call immediately after the falling space debris struck your grandmother?"
@@robchang4410if only!
if you can't keep up, that ain't the job for you.
An effective if infuriating strategy
The flow should always be broken/interrupted. Now counsel should be allowed to get momentum, on either side. Each question should stand on its own, and each answer should be honest and well thought out.
Every court reporter or stenographer should chime in periodically, even if they don’t need to.
That only shows how messed up that system is. It shouldnt matter who put up the better show
If they interrupt more than once in a less than resonable way...that dhould be grounds for impeding the trial
And I understand it’s probably a hearing issue and an understanding issue totally or more likely. However, it could be nefarious, trying to break the role of questions and the flow as well.
Susan would bring looking for other work and would be banned from my cases or held accountable for disturbing the court case flow and affect juries.
Damn you Susan...!
One, they should not be allowed to interrupt.
Two, it's 2024, just record the stinking thing and transcribe later!
If the person cannot hear, it is doubtful a recording device can pick it up. Some people are just mumbles or speed talkers who can't finish a word, sentence, or thought. A recorder isn't going to fix that.
Noted.
If im ever on jury duty for anything but a crime on children or spouses, Im going to ask "is everything we've beem showm in these videos able to be considered?"
And the moment I get "yes", Im going to refuse to convict, as these statements have cut parts, and I dont know if theyre against or in favor of the defendant. And Im going to do jurry nullification without having to say "I did it for moral reasons I already said wouldnt be a problem"
They'll bring out the transcript the court reporter made. A lot of times, they're timestamped to match the recording. Reporters even write down that they interrupted. So they'll just point out that the jumps in the video correspond with the interruptions on the transcript.
@@jasmin2974 dont care. Its a way to use jury nullification without dropping the term "jury nullification".
@@marcush4741 you'll hold up deliberations, waste the judge's time, and make the other jurors mad just for funzies?
@@jasmin2974 if the crime is one that Im morally opposed to sending somebody to prison for?
Absolutely. Im going to take whatever ground I can to push for jury nullification WITHOUT saying so. Defandants have a better shot after a hung jury. Both in the second trial AND in plea deals that come up between the two.
@@jasmin2974 and lets look at what you said honestly.
Waste a judge's time?
Hes getting paid. The delay is only a few hours. Maybe days. If theres a hung jury, its a new judge. The first judge got paid for his work. The second judge will get paid for his work.
Meanwhile, depending on the state, the defendant could be looking at YEARS for selling weed.
Yeah. Until most defendants in victimless crimes say "I would have preferred you found me guilty than give me a second chance at a trial", Im gonna waste the time of the folks freely choosing to get paid for participating in the justice system.
"But tax dollars". If youre mad, make laws that have high rates of jury nullification illegal. Its a democratic republic. Put up or shut up. Vote for the folks who are against charges for victimless crimes. If youre like me and realize that representatives dont and dont HAVE to listen to their constituents, jury nullification is our last stand against unjust laws.
Im wasting time for people being paid for their time. And giving second chances to people facing years of confinement (and lifelong restrictions of rights after confinement) to folks who are praying that people like me exist.
I get it. I did college debate - similar in a lot of ways.
Request to scream at top of lungs sustained, counselor.
...They let you request another stenographer? Maybe you ain't the first person with "concerns".
bureaucratic perfection 😂
You should have edited the deposition so it just played all of her interruptions into a big list.
I'd be mad as hell and look at the judge like dude is this fr
I thought court reporters as a professional code of conduct never interrupted someone to repeat or clarify
Are you sure that she's not being paid off by the defense to keep the wind out out of your sails?
In Norway we don't have court reporters, so I guess we don't have this issue 😂
I have practiced in a court where the trial was recorded and then transcribed. At least, no one interrupted my flow.
Grounds for mis-trial maybe?
i thought they were called stenographers.
Could 'the other side' insist tgose interruptions stay in tye footage though to purposefully sabotage your momentum when displayed to the jury?
The worse court reporters are ones who don't record things. Or in one of Steve Lehto's cases, the reporter CHANGED THE ANSWER! When a witness lied on the stand, he tried to impeach them with their prior deposition testimony. But the court reporter had written "no" instead of "yes" when recording the deposition, which screwed things up!
I have a question, would the court recorder have to excuse themselves if they personally knew one of the people on trial?
I bet she was bribed to mess up your flow or the person that assigns court reporters was paid off to give you an incompetent one.
“We had H2O”
😂
Shes getting paid to break your stride. Check it out.
I already know who it was. It was this old woman from Huseby Global Litigation.
Did Susan make a bonus maybe?
My mind went immediately to somebody, doing something dirty, somewhere, that money played the lead in.
😊
Surely you could ask to have her removed
That would make me want to question the court reporter and find out if they are affiliated with that witness in any way or the present case.
It does absolutely nothing to even remotely imply that they’re affiliated with the witness, it implies this guy is not speaking loudly enough.
Having done interpreting, may things can "garble" speech as @SaltSpirits said , not speaking loud enough, and also when speaking too fast, the speaker fails to enunciate, a chair scraping the floor, a persistent cough from someone in the room, a door or bench creaking.
Also, it's not uncommon for people who spend a lot of time in court to mumble.
Lawyers often talk fast. Lawyers often talk even faster when they are excited. Lawyers talk at their absolute fastest when they are conducting an examination of a witness that is, somehow, able to match their pace. I have seen numerous attorneys absolutely tear through depositions (especially expert depositions) at an absurd pace despite multiple admonations by the reporter to slow down. It’s very common, and not at all suspect-lawyers just talk fast sometimes.
Sounds like Susan needs to find a new profession.
Courts have gotten in the habit of not creating voice recordings of the proceeding as a backup in addition to the one created by the court reporter and their data entry device. Why I do not know.
Wait, can you wait to wait
My grandma was one got my dad out of plenty of trouble only got one of his sisters out of trouble once him I think it was more than 3-4 times😂
It’s called being a bad lawyer. You need to slow down and speak clearer and wait for the witness to answer the question before you start with your next question.
I have depositions on my channel…
Do they allow de bene esse depositions in your main jurisdiction?
With the technology that we have now, there's no need for a court reporter to type everything down. All you need is someone to sit there and make sure the parties don't conspire to leave things off the recording.
Susan needs to get it together!
So why have we not gone to a digital voice recording of the court rooms? It’s gotta be cheaper than having court reporters and storing physical typed pages.
Not a job i could do, thats for sure
Talk about a profession that is on the chopping block for computer transcription and AI. 🤖
is this the guy that played lamplighter in the boys
You pick them, and you pay them.
And it's for reasons like that that I went to jail
Rythym & tempo. Makes sense RE shortened vids for the jury trial otherwise the juries & judges would drown in info saturation. Like, "here's the 30 seconds where so&so ran the red light while texting & t boned my client"
Is the court reporter not able to revisit the video.. for things they may not have caught or clearly understood at the initial time?
Oh so what you’re saying is they can’t do their job good enough😂
You realize it could have been like her first week on the job or anything else like that. Like give her a break court reporting's one of the hardest jobs cuz you can't miss a single word