Court reporters and DAR.

The following is a letter provided to the Topeka Bar Assn. newsletter about the advantages of court reporters over DAR. Read it.

The Court Reporter-Guardian Of The Record

There has been much discussion in the Third Judicial District about using Digital Audio Recording (DAR) for various types of hearings. One of our misdemeanor criminal courts is already experimenting with the use of DAR technology. As an official court reporter I have seen several very important reasons why DAR should not be used in criminal proceedings.

First let me explain to you exactly what a court reporter is and what they do. A court reporter is simply a silent, impartial witness who records what is said in court, who then safeguards that record and when requested provides an accurate printed account of that record within a specific amount of time. Some can provide a real-time record that is displayed immediately on monitors in the courtroom. I provided This service during the Koch family trial here in Topeka Federal Court. You may have also seen real-time during the O.J. Simpson murder trial on TV.

A prospective court reporter, after training must pass examinations to certify their accuracy, speed, spelling, grammar and punctuation. After certification they are allowed to affix their seal to a transcript certifying that the transcript was prepared by a Certified Court Reporter thus assuring the accuracy of that document. The court reporter is able to certify the accuracy because they saw and heard what was transpiring in the courtroom. When the speaker spoke too fast or was inaudible the court reporter was able to intervene and slow them down or ask them to speak louder so that their statement will be heard and properly recorded. Law requires the court reporter to guard that record and provide a transcript in a timely manner when requested. Any attorney that cannot obtain an accurate transcript from a reporter in a reasonable amount of time has legal recourse from the State Supreme Court who will issue a “show cause“ to the court reporter in question in order to ascertain the cause of the delay. Likewise the court reporter faces disciplinary and legal action if a transcript is not provided.

The DAR records audio and only audio it cannot differentiate between words. It cannot use visual input or prior knowledge of the case at hand to add to its understanding of what is being said. It will record unintelligible sounds and any background noise that masks testimony. When a DAR is supplied to a transcriptionist to be transcribed many times a complete and accurate transcript cannot be made. Even the skilled firm that the court uses returns transcripts with “inaudible” in many important places. Unlike the record taken by a Certified Court Reporter no one is responsible for the maintenance and accuracy of the DAR. If the transcript of a DAR is not useable for an attorney they have no legal recourse. In several instances already there simply was no DAR taken. Either the judge forgot to turn it on or it simply was lost. If I were an attorney I would be upset if a key portion of the proceedings in a criminal case was “inaudible” or “unintelligible” or simply nonexistent because someone didn’t turn on the recorder or lost the record. Especially since there is no legal recourse.

As a student court reporter I was taught to be “seen and not heard”, probably the reason I haven’t spoken before. The thing is that if you see me in the courtroom you know an accurate record is being taken it will be protected and a transcript will be available. If you don’t see a court reporter, who knows?

If the record is important to you request a court reporter or you don’t know what you will get.

On the administrative level the Certified Court Reporter is seen as an unnecessary expense. The DAR is attractive as an inexpensive replacement.

What price, Justice?


Dorothy J. Sheeley-Seel CSR, RPR, FCRR
Managing Reporter, Third Judicial District