Re: Keeping the Record Final Report [Hon Gary E Donahoe]

Comment on Petition [JoJene Mills]

[Comments] [Borowiec & Borowiec, P.C. by Joel P. Borowiec]

[Comments] Response to Rule 28 Petition to Allow Electronic Recording Versus Court Reporters [Leslie A. Baird]

[Comments] [Matthew J. Smith]

[Comments] [Judge Dan Slayton]

I am in agreement that there are certain proceedings where a court reporter is not necessary. I also understand that the use of electronic recording for certain legal proceedings is permissive; court reporters can still be requested. I think that it is short-sighted, though, in making such a sweeping change on how we keep the record, to pursue this rule change without more data on how the proposed rule change is functioning in a controlled setting. In my opinion, more time is needed to ascertain how these changes will affect the most important parties to this change: the lititgants themselves.

I have used electronic recording (FTR Gold) in hundreds of cases both criminal and civil. While it functioned correctly for most of the proceedings, it also failed. The issues of failure which I believe are significant for consideration of this rule change are: 1) the inability of the clerk to determine that the recording was failing or had failed during trial, and 2) the failure or inability of judges to ensure litigants or their attorneys were at or near the microphone in order to pick up certain testimony.

These failures would be catastophic for certain civil proceedings such as complex civil litigation, wrongful death cases, and medical malpractice cases which under the proposed rule authorize waiver of a court reporter. No appeal could be taken where the record was defective due to the failure to record or where the recording functioned properly but due to either the failure of the parties speaking to be at the microphone, or the failure of a microphone to capture the sound adequately, the record was inaudible or incomprensible.

Assume that a plaintiff to a wrongful death case had barely sufficient funds to take a case to trial and the electronic recording was insufficient or had failed completely. Assume further that either the plaintiff or defendant had a legitimate appeal issue. However, due to the failure of the record or the fact that certain portions of the record were inaudible or incomprehensible, no appeal could be taken. What would the cost be to the parties to have to re-try the case? Could the plaintiff even consider the cost of re-trial? Ultimately, what would be the cost to the integrity of our judicial system and the confidence of the citizens in a system that depended upon a nine-volt battery as opposed to taking the time to see whether these changes will truly enhance our legal proceedings?

I propose that a five-year study of certain selected courts be conducted to establish a baseline of data for the efficacy of such a change. I fail to see why this rule change must be hurried into existence absent a careful study examining its effect upon the lives of those who would be significantly impacted by its presence.

Respectfully,

Judge Dan Slayton
Division Five
Coconino County Superior Court

[Comment] [David Savage]

I am not a lawyer but I have noticed in several proceedings where my step father has blatently lied or his attorney has twisted the truth to fit the agenda. I would sure like to be able to use their words and lack of candor to crucify them All I want is justice for my ailing mother as I am her only representative and she got nothing in support or property because the others side is allowed to lie.
Mr. David Savage
Master of Arts Russian
Tucson Arizona

[Comments] [W. Bert Lundy]

[Comment] [Jim L. Johnston, Esq.]

[Comments] [Jeffrey J. Hernandez]

[Comments] [Jodie Guhr]

[Comments] [Peter B. Keller, Esq.] [Filed April 27, 2006]

[Comments] [Stephen H. Lesher, Esq.] [Filed May 9, 2006]

Angela F. Miller, RPR, CR (AZ50127)
Miller Certified Reporting, LLC
PO Box 513
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
623-975-7472 – Phone
623-975-7462 – fax
[email protected]

[Comments] [Patricia A. Connolly]

Dear Honorable Justices:

I would appreciate your time and consideration on the decision of Court Reporters' presence in all Civil, Juvenile and Criminal Evidentiary Proceedings.

Yes, we as Court Reporters have a personal and financial interest in this decision; however, I have always believed we provide a valuable service to the Court.

Every day, I strive to write and when requested, produce an accurate record and take tremendous pride in my job. I would hope our presence and the human element has been recognized as being valuable.

Electronic recordings transcribed by a pool of people who were not present at the hearing and could possibly be inexperienced in transcribing court proceedings cannot be compared to Court Reporters.

Also, considering the incident rate of forgetting to turn on the equipment, place a disk, CD or tape in the equipment and equipment failure, electronic recordings should not be compared to Court Reporters.

Have you ever experienced an event of forgetfulness when the Court Reporter inconspicuously reminded you? An electronic recording is incapable of recognizing judicial economy. Please consider this when making your decision.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Patricia A. Connolly
Certified Reporter - Certificate Number 50675
17319 E. Via Del Oro
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
[email protected]
(480) 235-3534

Thaddeus G. Baker, Jr.
12 East Dale Ave.
PO Box C
Flagstaff, AZ 86002
Phone: (928)774-5208
Fax: (928)774-0548
E-Mail: [email protected]


I would like to add my voice in opposition to the elimination of the verbatim record. I practice in bankruptcy court and in administrative appellate proceeding where audio recordings are used. To use an audio recording in a proceeding one has to retain a transcriptionist. The quality of the end product is often insufficient as many words are missing or there are areas of the tape that are inaudiable due to backround noise. Court reporters are more accurate because they are present when the testimoney is given and it is more efficient to just order the transcript. Adding another layer to obtain a written transcript of lesser qualifty is counterproductive. In addition. one can read a transcript must faster than one can listen to a transcript. The practice of law is difficult enough, without making it more difficult to preserve an accurate record of the testimoney or argument. Thaddeus G. Baker Jr. Attorney at Law

Terri L. Vos, RPR
Certified Reporter 50115
4919 E. Scarlett St.
Tucson, AZ 85711
[email protected]
(520) 319-1678

Dear Honorable Justices,

It has been proven time and again and in several states throughout the country where court reporters have been replaced with ER that the judicial process suffers. After going through the expense of installing ER and modifying courtrooms to accommodate and enhance the effectiveness of the equipment many courts have subsequently abandoned the use of this equipment or only use it when absolutely necessary. Why would Arizona expect that our implementation of such equipment would be more successful?
Court reporters are professionals working in the actual setting of the proceedings, not a transcriber who is far removed from the setting. Court reporters understand the importance of the proceedings, that their end product will affect people's lives and that that person deserves the best possible transcript they can receive. Transcribers are only capable of transcribing what is understandable on the recording. They cannot ask for clarification. In this regard obviously the transcript is going to suffer. Also, the transcribers are generally entry-level, unskilled typists who have no experience with technical subjects and terminology.
Please consider these issues when deciding the issue of allowing ER in any civil, criminal, juvenile, domestic, and compency matters.
I submit my comments in support of maintaining the professional court reporter as the sole means of keeping the record in Arizona.

Sincerely,

Terri L. Vos, RPR
Certified Reporter 50115
4919 E. Scarlett St.
Tucson, AZ 85711
[email protected]
(520) 319-1678

[Comment] [Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Don Stapley, Chairman]

Theresa Aguilar
800 W. Main Street
Safford, Arizona 85546
(928)428-3310
(928)428-1032 (fax)
[email protected]