I have a friend who is a videographer.  He was telling me about a trial that he provided audio/visual support on in Las Vegas.  He said that the courts there have no live court reporters.  I guess it is all recorded electronically.  I asked him if the Court allowed a stenographic reporter to come in for the trial and he said the judge would not allow it.  Well, I guess it was a nightmare.  When they had to have things read back it took forever.  I can't remember how he said they accomplished that, but it was a very time-consuming procedure.  I guess using this method of making the record made the trial take a lot longer than having a living court reporter there providing the service.

Views: 261

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's a real shame that many entities cannot see the forest for the trees.  One would think the extra time and effort to record in this way would negate any financial savings they're hoping to reap.  And let's not even mention the difficulties in getting a good physical transcript produced from strictly audio/visual recordings.  Last I heard, machines are not able to ask for clarification over something missed or muddied due to heated crosstalk, walking away from the mic, and shuffling papers.

Ugh.

Good.  I'm glad it was more difficult and time consuming.  Maybe they'll realize having a live court reporter is the most efficient and less time consuming way to go.  The transcript will also not be as accurate since whoever has to transcribe the record was not there and will not be sure who is talking I bet.

ha ha - I am glad.

RSS

Latest Activity

© 2019   Created by Kelli Combs (admin).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service