Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 03 Jun 2021 05:30 PM by  Marretta Mathes
R-20-0013 Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings
 113 Replies
Author Messages
mmathes
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
09 Jan 2020 03:49 PM

    David K. Byers, Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 West Washington St.
    Phoenix AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3966
    [email protected]

    Would modify several rules of procedure to allow courts to create and maintain a complete and accurate record electronically to supplement court reporters and to modernize language in existing rules.

    Would amend civil, criminal and other procedural rules to supplement court reporters with electronic recording

    Filed January 9, 2020.

    Comment must be submitted on or before May 1, 2020.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2020.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings = CONTINUED until the December 2020 Rules Agenda.

    ORDERED: Continuing the consideration of the petition until the Court’s August 2021 Rules Agenda.
    Attachments
    Karla Martin
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 01:45 PM
    • The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Karla M. Martin, RPR, CSR, CR
    CART Captioning for the Deaf
    and the Hard of Hearing
    24 W. Camelback Road, Suite A-605
    Phoenix, AZ 85013
    602-266-1114
    [email protected]

    Dana Valles
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 01:57 PM
    Dana Valles, CCR, RPR
    Coalition of Arizona Court Reporters
    PO Box 1936, Florence, Arizona 85132
    520-866-5715
    [email protected]


    To Whom It May Concern:

    • I OPPOSE the suggested rule changes. I have been a Certified Court Reporter for over 26 years. I know firsthand that the currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record of the proceedings. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error.
    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.


    Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this very important matter.

    Dana Valles, CCR, RPR
    Coalition of Arizona Court Reporters
    520-866-5715
    [email protected]
    Jill Marnell
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 01:57 PM
    Jill Marnell
    928-713-1036
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Christine Bemiss
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 02:17 PM
    Christine Bemiss
    3748 Northstar Dr
    Lake Havasu City, AZ 86406
    928-715-4412
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
    Treva Colwell
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 03:37 PM
    Treva Colwell
    602-506-1126
    [email protected]

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
    Julie
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    20 Apr 2020 04:24 PM
    • I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    • Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    • The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    • The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules

    Julie Ottmar
    3370 N. 7th Street, Ste. 150
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    602-485-1488
    [email protected]
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:187 Basic Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 08:09 AM
    Kayla Hubanks
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    JDChurch
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 09:13 AM
    I am against the suggested rule change. The proceedings currently mandated to use a certified court reporter are too important to risk having only electronic recording. A court reporter is professionally trained and certified to report judicial proceedings. Court reporters provide equipment and software at their own expense and have built-in backup systems. They are subject to monetary sanctions and discipline from a licensing board if they do not meet standards. What backup is there for electronic recording and who will be held accountable for failures of equipment and operator error? What recourse is there for litigants who are stuck with a transcript prepared by an untrained, uncertified typist from a recording containing inaudible, overlapping, and indecipherable dialogue? There is no shortage of certified court reporters to cover the currently mandated proceedings. Even in outlying areas, with appropriate planning and scheduling -- just as for attorneys, judges, and essential parties to a proceeding -- a court reporter can be available. Please vote against any changes to the existing rules. Thank you.

    Jennifer Church
    AZ Certified Court Reporter
    Scottsdale, AZ 85254
    [email protected]
    480-534-6554
    TMayo
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 09:48 AM
    This effort has failed once and it should fail again. This hurts hard-working taxpayers (court reporters), judges, and people who have trial rights under our constitution. All so a big company that doesn't pay taxes in this state can benefit?

    Sneaking this in again while COVID-19 is in full swing is an affront to our democratic processes.

    Shame on on each of the bill sponsors for re-hashing this highly-flawed procedural change - you are making our democracy weaker with chicanery like this.

    Thomas W Mayo
    Republican
    17490 N 97th Street
    Scottsdale, AZ 85255
    S Pearce
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 10:38 AM
    Shelley Pearce, RPR
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Jennifer Ogaard
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 12:27 PM
    I am strongly in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters are highly skilled and have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Think of having to retry a case, summoning witnesses again, jurors, ect. To rely on a machine to capture the record minimizes the importance of the judiciary in its entirety. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Jenny Ogaard, RPR, CRR
    [email protected]
    11263 South Hopi Drive
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    Linda S. Christensen
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 12:45 PM
    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Linda S. Christensen, RMR, CRR, CRC
    Scribe Enterprises, Inc.
    6817 N 4th Place
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    [email protected]
    480.226.7766
    Catherine L. Turner
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 03:11 PM
    Catherine L. Turner
    618-444-2045
    [email protected]
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Lisa Bradley
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 03:22 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Lisa Bradley, CSR, RPR, [email protected]; 623-398-8892
    Denice
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 04:19 PM
    I too strongly OPPOSE this suggested rule change in anyway. I have been a Certified Court Reporter for almost 32 years in Superior Court in the State of Arizona and this is a gross injustice not only to us as court reporters, but everyone involved in the judicial process. When you try to change things as vital as this, you are changing something that is not broke and you should not in anyway hinder the process that we all strive to uphold and keep.

    thank you for considering my comments and please do not go forward with the suggested changes, thank you.

    Denice Ripple, RPR
    928-402-6864
    [email protected]
    L Thielmann
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    21 Apr 2020 09:07 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rules changes. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    L. Thielmann, CR, RPR
    [email protected]
    KarenKahle
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2020 09:04 AM
    I am opposed to this rule change. I am an official reporter and have been called on many times to cover mental health hearings where there is electronic recording. Yesterday, April 21, 2020, the electricity went out at one of the hospitals and they needed to call a court reporter to cover the hearings. The electronic recording was completely offline from February 25, 2020, through March 11, 2020. Again, a court reporter had to be called in to cover these hearings. There is no backup if the electronic recording fails. I have transcribed many For the Record recordings where a court reporter is not present only to have complete silence on the recording. This rule change was initiated because of a perceived shortage of court reporters. That is no longer the case. There are many court reporters attending schools all across the country. Also, other states have tried to replace court reporters with audio/video recording and it has failed and ended up costing more than any money "saved" by replacing a court reporter. First degree murder trials have had to be redone because of audio/video recording failures. For all of these reasons and many more, please vote no on this rule change.
    Thank you,
    Karen Kahle, RPR
    (520) 724-3015
    [email protected]
    Robin O
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2020 10:19 AM
    I have been a court reporter for 33 years, 17 of which have been in Arizona and 16 in California. I strongly oppose the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have an ethical responsibility to take down testimony and produce transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberties are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error.
    Additionally, the Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court.
    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Robin L. B. Osterode, CSR (CA), RPR, CR (AZ)
    [email protected]
    New River, Arizona
    Wanda Curry
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2020 03:53 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole.

    Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Wanda J. Curry
    P.O. Box 2863
    Peoria, AZ 85380
    602.525.2345
    [email protected]

    Marylynn LeMoine
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    22 Apr 2020 04:39 PM
    I am in strong opposition to this proposed rule change. It mirrors the language contained in HB2355, which was not passed earlier this year by the legislature. Certified court reporters have been an integral part of the judicial process for decades, and there is no reason to change that procedure now. Having a certified reporter in the courtroom as the guardian of the record has long been the golden standard to ensure that a verbatim transcript will be available should any party desire a transcript. In my capacity as an official court reporter who has worked for Maricopa County Superior Court for 20 years, I know firsthand that there are digital recording failures on a weekly basis and court reporters run to the rescue whenever it is noticed. It is catastrophic for all parties involved when it is only discovered weeks or months after the fact that the digital recording failed and there is no record. I find it disingenuous that this rule change is still being promulgated in spite of the results of the legislative initiative which failed.

    Marylynn LeMoine, RPR, RMR, CRI
    [email protected]
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Sharon
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2020 01:20 AM
    • I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I have been a court reporter for 44 years and they have been trying to take away the verbatim record for a very long time. I have been involved with depositions, court proceedings and jury trials. I have also transcribed many, many digital recordings from the court(s) and find it very, very difficult even though I am used to the "voices" of all the parties that usually show up to the courtroom, having been the court reporter daily at this particular court for 35 years. They now only use digital recording for hearings, change of pleas, judgment & sentencing and more; and when someone slams a door or coughs or shuffles papers on the Bench/tables, the microphones pick it up. It doesn't matter how many microphones you turn off to try to hear it better, there is NO WAY to hear what was said and it could be a life-or-death situation for a defendant. There was even a situation where the "recording" was not turned on and they had NO record of the proceedings at all. Pretty scary!! A few years ago, I had to prepare a transcript from 1986 (a five-day jury trial) because the defendant was tried in absentia; and when he filed for medicare, he was apprehended and brought back to court to be sentenced; and yes, my old "paper notes" were still intact and readable and my new computer software (brand new in 1986) still worked in the new computer software with the help of our wonderful software vendors and the transcript was used to show what happened at the trial when he was not present. I don't think a recording could have lasted that long! Court reporters have been preserving the verbatim record for many, many years. They are very ethical and trustworthy individuals; and they can speak up and say, "I'm sorry. Can you repeat that" and make the record clear. It's impossible to transcribe when parties/attorneys are speaking over the top of one another! I've tried many, many times when transcribing a digital recording and am forced to put "inaudible" or "unintelligible" -- something I NEVER DO on my transcripts as a court reporter!! Please please vote against any changes to the current rules!
    Sharon Bradley, CSR (CA), CR (NV), CSR (UT), CR (AZ), RMR, CRR
    [email protected]
    Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Charlene Rossi
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2020 09:48 AM
    I am in opposition of this suggested rule change. I am not a Certified Court Reporter but a concerned Arizona tax paying citizen that is extremely concerned with the “person(s)” that are trying to change Arizona Supreme Court policy and take away our ability to have an accurate transcript, by a Certified Court Reporter, of ANY proceedings that we may find ourselves in.
    Frankly, I cannot believe that this has come about yet again. I was in attendance of the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee during the 2020 legislative session when the proponents of HB 2235 tried to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and rush similar policy changes. I was totally amazed at the number of Arizona Certified Court Reporters that came from all over the state to voice their testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, and the number of other stakeholders who voiced their opposition and stated succinct and data-driven information to the legislators. The CCR’s spoke with honesty, intelligence, knowledge and experience regarding their education, skill, integrity, and obligations.
    One CCR that spoke had hard numbers with data to back the amount of CCR’s in Arizona along with the accounting of the State’s proceedings that needed CCR’s and their needs were met. There is no shortage of CCR’s in Arizona like you are being led to believe.
    Another CCR spoke and played an actual Electronic Recording of a proceeding where attorneys were yelling over each other, a person was coughing, and the litigant had a strong accent and was speaking so fast that it was unintelligible. I was so taken back in the inability to hear and understand what was being said on the recording that a transcriptionist would just transcribe it as “inaudible”. I believe the recording was in a felony criminal trial also where someone was facing a significant amount of jail. If a CCR was doing the transcript you can bet that they would have slowed the litigant down to understand him, they would have stopped the attorneys so an accurate transcription was made and they would have been able to ignore the cough and hear what was being said. The transcript would not have been left to “inaudible”.
    I only hope that something like this doesn’t happen to either you, me, or our loved ones. It will if these policy changes are approved! I left the State Capitol that day in total disgust that the Administrative Office of the Courts were trying to push ER through. What an injustice and disservice. What a waste of time. Keep the policies as is.

    Charlene Rossi
    Citizen
    208-221-3774
    [email protected]
    Robin Bobbie
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2020 02:13 PM

    I am in OPPOSITION of the proposed rule change.

    The reliance of a backup recording system to be the primary form of keeping a record would be a tragic mistake on the part of any court system, but especially a busy one like Maricopa County Superior Court. This change would affect ALL parties to a criminal or civil action. There are failures of the current electronic system on a daily basis, and that is a fact. The people who work in a courtroom on a daily basis would attest to that, whether a clerk, a lawyer, or even a judge.
    Missing one minute, or even ten seconds, of a criminal or civil trial, because of the inevitable electronic failure(s), would create an incomplete, inaccurate record, would result in retrials and cost the taxpayers of this County thousands upon thousands of dollars.
    We have the gold standard in place with nationally certified and ethically obligated court-certified Court Reporters, who are committed in their profession, who take continuing education yearly, are always advancing their technology, providing realtime transcripts to the judges on the bench, as well as making an accurate record of all proceedings. Why would anyone risk that?

    Please vote against any change in the current rule.

    Thank you.

    Robin G. Bobbie, RMR, CRR, FCRR
    Phoenix, Arizona
    [email protected]
    Anne
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2020 04:00 PM
    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error.

    Further, the Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court.

    People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Anne Liu
    623-225-8332
    Litchfield Park, AZ
    Angela F. Miller
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2020 05:11 PM
    I am in OPPOSITION to Rule R-20-0013 and STRONGLY urge you to vote against it.

    This legislative session the legislature heard and understood that HB2235 was not ready for primetime in its original form. HOWEVER, even though HB2235 failed in the House, it seems the Administrative Office of the Courts wants to circumvent both the will of the legislature and the attitude and viewpoints of the public by putting forth Rule R-20-0013 that directly mimics and contains the same language as HB2235 in its original form.

    For the last 20 years I have been a guardian of the record as a certified court reporter, and I – along with all certified reporters – take that responsibility seriously and to heart every single day of our life. We are independent third parties whose obligation and duty is to create and maintain the verbatim record. We take every word that is spoken down verbatim. We stop speakers when they are talking too fast or over each other; you will never see an “inaudible” or “indiscernible” in a court reporter’s transcript of a proceeding. This is because we know and understand that someone’s life and liberty may depend on that transcript. We are certified, educated, highly qualified, and spend hours sometimes researching one word to make sure we get it right and in the right context.

    I have been hired by private attorneys over the last few years to transcribe the FTR digital recordings for matters on appeal when they want a certified reporter to transcribe and create the transcript, not a transcriptionist. I have all too often had to call the attorney and tell them that the recording was not shut off during the breaks and their full attorney-client privileged conversation was recorded and now part of the “official” record. I recently had one where the court staff was told by the attorney it was still running and they refused to shut it off and even said, “Yeah, sometimes the attorneys get mad, but I still leave it on.” This is on the record. I have also had to call the attorney and let them know that the recording starts in the middle of a witness, that I am not sure if it is direct examination, cross, or even who is on the stand testifying. I cannot imagine if that were the case in a death penalty case or grand jury matter, which is what they are currently proposing in Rule R-20-0013.

    Specifically to Grand Jury proceedings where all matters are confidential, including the grand juror names and witness names, certified reporters are independent and are entrusted and governed by law on how to handle these type of situations, disciplinary proceedings can be taken against our licenses and we are required to obtain continuing education hours in our given field. We are present, we can list who is asking questions, we do not ever put in “Unidentified Speaker”; during juror deliberations when we leave the room, everyone knows what is being said is not being recorded so that deliberations are safe and will never be revealed. None of this is true with digital recordings. Transcriptionists are not governed by a certification body who can hold them accountable, they do not undergo strict background and fingerprint clearance. When these recordings are sent out to be transcribed, there is no control over who is seeing the information, if they are a relative to the party or juror, or if they have a vested interest in the outcome of the case or can “leak” confidential information. There is no safeguard.

    There is currently not a court reporter shortage in Arizona as has been suggested. The Request a Reporter program through ACRA has been successfully utilized and has been able to fulfill and cover hearings across the state, including the outlying counties. The reciprocity law is in effect and we have numerous students enrolled in both brick-and-mortar schools and online schools for court reporting.

    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Angela F. Miller, RPR, CR(AZ50127)
    Miller Certified Reporting, LLC
    Litchfield Park, AZ
    623-975-7472
    [email protected]
    john5
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2020 07:57 PM
    I OPPOSE R-20-0013.

    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I do not want to rely on a computer/program to hold my future and possible life. I refuse to rely on a hard drive that is made in China to hold the record that has the capability of changing my life forever. I work in the IT industry. Hard drives and hardware in general just do not last. They do not tell you when they stop. If a court reporter dies in a courtroom, we all know it's very obvious. (WHEN) a computer dies in a courtroom, one may not notice until it is too late. The cost of these electronic courtrooms could easily employee someone for many many years. A computer will constantly require capital to stay cutting edge. This is not a one time cost, it continues every few years. What about the security aspect of this equipment?

    The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record.

    A court reporter is an integral part of the legal field. There are currently mandated hearings where someone’s life and liberty are at stake. I do not work in the legal field, I never have, but I understand that when I see a court reporter sitting there working and writing on their machine, that they are there to preserve the what was said. I know if people are yelling or talking over one another that the court reporter will ask them to talk one at a time. I know that if someone has a heavy accent and the rest of us cannot understand them but just catch bits and pieces, that that court reporter will be hanging on every word and asking them to repeat it. A machine cannot do that. A machine cannot say: “Hey someone has a cold in here and is coughing so I cannot hear what everyone else is saying.” No one will know that until months and sometimes years down the road when relying on that transcript is the only way anyone will know what happened in the courtroom that day. If you watch any crime drama TV show you will see there is always a court reporter, and sometimes they even say: “Will the court reporter read that back?” And they do. No machine can do that.

    This proposal suggests that the amendments are being made to SUPPLEMENT the record. However, the actual reality is that this proposed rule change will remove court reporters from ANY and ALL hearings and utilizing digital recording as the official record regardless if a court reporter is present. It would also allow court administration the discretion of whether or not to place a court reporter in a specific trial or courtroom even if it is requested by one or more parties to the case with advanced notice. That is unacceptable.

    The general public, including myself, believe that if they are ever unfortunate enough to have to become involved in the court system, either as a party or a witness, that their rights, liberties, and life would be of the utmost value, placed in the hands of highly-skilled and educated professionals, and protected against any corruption. I feel that these proposed changes undermine and demean that belief.

    Again, please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Robert S. Miller
    Citizen, Arizona Native
    623-547-4747
    [email protected]
    Cindy McDevitt
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    24 Apr 2020 12:44 PM
    I oppose the suggested rule changes. The proposed changes will be detrimental to many aspects of our court system. Certified Court Reporters are highly trained individuals who are tasked with upholding not only the ethical responsibilities of taking a verbatim record but in producing a written transcript of those proceedings. Electronic recording is a poor substitute for a Certified Court Reporter and leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Cindy McDevitt
    Tucson, AZ
    [email protected]
    Michele Kaley
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    24 Apr 2020 03:19 PM
    I am writing in opposition of this amendment. When it comes to the importance of the record, court reporters have an ethical responsibility to ensure not only the accuracy of the record, but also to maintain the professional respect and privacy of those involved. Only a court reporter, in the presence of any involved parties, can stop the proceedings due to any concerns with the record. Any inaudible mumbles, difficult accents, two or more people speaking can result in vital parts of the record that are forever lost. Additionally, the amount of judicial officers who request and rely on our real-time transcription is growing. That real-time is helpful when there is an objection or if the judicial officer is hard of hearing. It can also be saved by the judges to use for future rulings.

    I urge you to please consider denying this request. To grant it could result in catastrophic losses to an individual's life, liberty, and financial demise.

    Thank you.

    Michele Kaley, CCR 50512
    Official Court Reporter
    [email protected]
    Kate Roundy
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    24 Apr 2020 09:27 PM

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole.

    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice.

    I urge you to not allow any changes to the current rules as they stand. The legislature recognized the danger to the public. Please do the same and vote against any change to our current rules.


    Kate Roundy, AZ Certified Court Reporter
    Arizona Court Reporters Association Past President
    SKREM Task Force Member
    17208 North 17th Street
    Phoenix, Arizona 85022
    602-820-5983
    [email protected]
    Teri Veres
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    26 Apr 2020 03:10 PM
    I am strongly OPPOSED to this pending amendment. We as highly skilled court reporters have to constantly battle to keep our jobs and the major value we bring to the courtroom proceedings. Live court reporters care about the record, ER does not!!! I have worked in court settings where they
    got rid of reporters and tried to rely on recorded proceedings and transcripts transcribed by non-certified, non-trained transcriptionists and the record has been usuable and so many instances of ER failure to mention.

    This amendment failed once already this year. Let us do our jobs and stop trying to disrupt the justice system. Peoples' lives are affected by the written record and it needs to be accurate! If you could take the time to understand how hard and challenging our job is, you may understand how we are an integral part of the justice system.


    PLEASE DO NOT PASS THIS PROPOSED PETITION...

    Thank you,
    Teri Veres, RMR,
    Maricopa County
    Superior Court Official
    [email protected]
    Jessica W
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    26 Apr 2020 04:44 PM
    Please vote against any changes to the current rules. I am in STRONG opposition to R-20-0013.

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake.
    I know I would want a certified court reporter to transcribe and record my case, if I had one, rather than an electronic recording. I would never feel comfortable with electronic recording as the primary/official record if I were involved in any type of case. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Please vote AGAINST R-20-0013.

    Jessica Wasdyke, RPR, CR
    Arizona Citizen
    [email protected]
    480-261-4974
    Debra Carney
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    26 Apr 2020 06:09 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error.

    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Debra Carney, RPR, CCR
    [email protected]
    Phoenix, AZ
    Diane D
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 09:43 AM
    I am in strong opposition to this proposed rule change. It mirrors the language contained in HB2355, which was voted down earlier this year by the legislature. Certified court reporters have been an integral part of the judicial process for decades, and there is no reason to change that procedure now. Having a certified reporter in the courtroom as the guardian of the record has long been the golden standard to ensure that a verbatim transcript will be available should any party desire a transcript. I know firsthand that there are digital recording failures on a weekly basis and court reporters run to the rescue whenever it is noticed. It is catastrophic for all parties involved when it is only discovered weeks or months after the fact that the digital recording failed and there is no record.

    Last March 7, 2019, I was called to cover RCC court, with over 80 proceedings scheduled, as the FTR was not working. When I arrived, Judge Seyer was informed that the FTR was now operational and I was no longer needed but that he was very grateful I was able to be there so quickly. I told him that, since I was here and there was an area for me to set up, I would stay in case I was needed as this has happened previously in other courtrooms and I may need to be called back. Within a few minutes the bailiff returned to tell Judge Seyer that, indeed, FTR was not working. Judge Seyer thanked me profusely as I was ready to capture the record. We continued with the day’s proceedings, and again, Judge Seyer noted to the courtroom attendees that a court reporter was present and we were able to move forward without any delays. That was one incident, but it happens on a regular basis. The recording system fails or the person tasked with turning it on forgets to do so. The latter scenario happens frequently as staff in the courtroom are extremely busy. Our job is to capture the verbatim record, and that's what we do.


    The elimination of even the bare‐bones list of protected proceedings that require a certified reporter that have been repeatedly upheld as too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of digital recording is incredibly dangerous. We threaten the life and liberty of defendants and justice and closure for crime victims if we risk allowing an inaccurate record. I find it disingenuous that this rule change is still being promulgated in spite of the results of the legislative initiative which failed.

    Diane Donoho, RPR, CSR
    Phoenix, Arizona
    [email protected]
    ReinhardtL
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 10:33 AM
    Lori Reinhardt
    [email protected]
    480-216-1508


    I strongly oppose the Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Electronic recording systems are particularly prone to complete failures, risking the loss of any record at all. It is also prone to garbled or unintelligible words or sentences. A live court reporter - on the other hand - can stop the proceeding and ask for the person to repeat what was said, and/or ask the judge to direct those speaking to do so more loudly, more clearly, or in some other way more intelligibly, and certainly one-at-a-time, instead of speaking over one another. Technology can fail and sometimes does. The service that a court reporter provides is vital in the courtroom – where full and accurate record-keeping is critical. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Diego
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 12:15 PM
    I write this message to oppose the proposed rule change.

    I am one of the elected State Representatives for LD27, I am a member of the House Judiciary Committee and I am a practicing attorney. I have tried over 100 jury trials in my career. I have tried criminal matters and civil matters, I have tried cases in both state and federal courts.

    Court reporters are a fundamental part of our legal system and this rule change would undermine the integrity of our legal system. I have lost count of how many times a court reporter made a point to correct the clarity of the record of a proceeding I was taking part in. Machines simply can not do that same thing.

    Earlier this year I voted against the legislation that mirrored this proposed rule change because electronic recordings simply do not provide the same level of protections to my clients as a court reporter transcript does.

    Further, as I understand it, this rule change is being made to accommodate smaller jurisdictions that either can not or will not do what is needed to attract enough court reporters to conduct on the record proceedings. However, I also understand that court reporters from around the state commonly travel to the smaller jurisdictions to help out with the work load so the work is done. I do not support a change that is based on economics and which will also weaken the integrity of our legal system. The dollar cost savings is not worth the potential damage to liberty and justice in our courts.

    Diego Rodriguez,
    Attorney
    Arizona State Representative LD27
    Arizona State Capitol Complex
    1700 West Washington Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 926-3285
    Terry Masciola
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 12:47 PM
    I strongly oppose this rule change for all the reasons previously stated by the court reporters.
    I have served the court as a court reporter for 30 years and I see FTR fail weekly, sometimes more often than weekly, for a variety of reasons.
    Please vote against any rule change.

    Terry Masciola
    Phoenix, AZ
    602-577-8454
    [email protected]
    Kristen
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 01:26 PM
    I am in OPPOSITION to this proposed rule change. It is virtually identical to the recently submitted HB2355 bill, which was not passed earlier this year by the legislature. To rely solely on an electronic recording as a first choice for the preservation of judicial proceedings does not protect the liberty of Arizona citizens. A certified reporter who is present in the proceedings is the only accurate record keeper as we are able to stop a witness or attorney or judge for clarification to make a clear, accurate record. I witness firsthand the daily failures of the electronic recording system resulting in delays in hearings, including felony jury trials.
    While I do agree, ERS is an appropriate backup to have in some of our courts, it is just that, a backup. It was never meant, nor should be relied on as the first choice. Doing so would result in mistrials and overturned cases. Please don't put Arizona in the spotlight for trying to cut costs at the expense of their citizens.

    Please vote against any changes to the current rule.

    Respectfully,

    Kristen L. Brown, RPR
    Official Court Reporter
    Phoenix, AZ
    602-372-3957
    [email protected]
    Jerry Coash, Jr
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 01:27 PM
    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Jerry Coash, Jr.
    Phoenix, AZ
    [email protected]
    Cathy Miccolis
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 01:29 PM
    Cathy A. Miccolis
    [email protected]

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
    Brigid Donovan
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 01:38 PM
    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Brigid Donovan, RPR
    Arizona Certified Court Reporter
    Washington Certified Court Reporter
    Phoenix, Arizona
    [email protected]
    206.930.4320
    Leslie Craith
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 02:17 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Thank you for your time and attention in considering this very important issue.

    Leslie C. Craith, RPR
    P. O. Box 1898
    Higley, AZ 85236
    [email protected]
    Annette
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 03:44 PM
    Hello,

    I am strongly in OPPOSITION to Rule R-20-0013 and urge that you vote against it.

    In this legislative session the legislature heard HB2235 and it failed in the House. However, the Administrative Office of the Courts wants to circumvent both the will of the legislature and the attitude and viewpoints of the public by putting forth Rule R-20-0013 that contains the same language as HB2235 and IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM WITH NO CHANGES.

    I have been a certified court reporter in the state of Arizona since 1987. I take my duties as an officer of the court very seriously and the term "Guardian of the Record" accurately describes my responsibility as well as every other court reporter whom I know. We are independent third parties whose obligation is to record and maintain a verbatim record of all court proceedings - from Grand Jury proceedings, depositions, jury selection, any and all testimony given under oath, and the rulings and decisions by judges and juries. We can stop speakers if they are talking too fast or overlapping one another. Verbatim means EVERY WORD is reported and transcribed, not “inaudible” or “indiscernible." Someone's life may be placed in jeopardy if an answer is tape-recorded and subsequently deemed "inaudible" or "indiscernible" by a typist employed by an outside transcription company or outsourced somewhere overseas to a transcript factory. We are educated, highly qualified, required to participate in continuing education, and dedicated to our profession.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Please do not put the lives of Arizona's citizens into the "hands" of a tape recorder. Vote against Rule R-20-0013 and uphold all of our rights to fair and equitable justice. Thank you.

    Annette Satterlee, RPR, CRC
    Arizona Certified Reporter, Certificate No. 50179
    4310 E. Cayuga Ln.
    Rimrock, Arizona 86335
    928.225.1722
    [email protected]


    Kim Rupiper
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 04:31 PM
    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice.
    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole.
    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Kim Rupiper, CR, CRR, CRC
    4411 East Robin Lane
    Phoenix, AZ 85050
    602-818-8559
    [email protected]
    pcampbellcrr
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 04:37 PM
    To whom it may concern,

    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Paula Campbell, CR, RDR, CRR, CRC
    [email protected]
    312-560-5253
    Kristin DeCasas Therre
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 04:43 PM
    Kristin DeCasas
    1427 N. Gene Ave.
    Tempe, AZ 85281
    5867707714
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition to this proposed rule. The bill with the same language was already defeated in this legislative session, and for good cause. It is nonsensical. I am in my 25th year as a stenographer. Ever since I was in school 25 years ago, we were warned that there are people/companies out there who stand to gain considerable amounts of money if they could replace court reporters with just a recording of proceedings. This is nothing new. The reason stenographers are still around is because we have the training and brain function in order to make us the most efficient, accurate and precise method of keeping a record. There is no substitute that is superior to a human being. We have voices to alert participants when there is ANY KIND OF PROBLEM, of which there are about a thousand things that can go wrong in a proceeding. Stenographers are the voice alert to problems and the maker and keeper of the record.

    A recording system is a great back up, but should never be used as primary. It is an inferior and incompetent process for keeping the record. The last time this bill was defeated, it was asked "What is the back up for the proposed system?" The person proposing this bill had no answer. He diverted and digressed and did not answer the question because there is NO BACK UP! If there is a failure with the proposed system all record keeping is lost. If two people speak at once, it does not alert. If someone mumbles, it doesn't know. If someone coughs, it doesn't ask to repeat. If someone isn't speaking loud enough, it does not raise its hand and alert. In the end all that the person who is paying for that transcript or that person who is being held in prison, or that child who has had a miserable life and is waiting to be adopted will get -- instead of testimony -- is "(INAUDIBLE.)" and it could be critical and life-altering!

    If anyone cares about having an accurate record then this Proposed Rule will not pass. It is ludicrous. In matters of importance you do not make the back up system your main system without having a competent back up. It is a subpar system with many flaws. It is commensurate with asking Siri or Google to answer an important and complicated problem without human interface. Maybe we should just have Siri serve as Judge and jury while we are at it!

    Court reporters are well-trained. We are not just typists. We are physically present, producing a record in real time, not after the fact. When something works, you don't change it just because someone sees an opportunity to benefit financially.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    Kristin M. DeCasas, CSR, RPR

    Tracy Jamieson
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    27 Apr 2020 05:13 PM
    To whom it may concern:

    I OPPOSE R-20-0013

    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Last year I reported a trial where an attorney was called as a witness. During the testimony he recounted the difficulties he faced to adequately represent his client during an appeal due to the failure of electronic recording. This one exchange, in particular, shown below, has remained in my mind to cite when faced with having to advocate for court reporters over ER.

    The case I am referring to is Larsgard v. Straub, et al., 4:13-cv-00638-DCB, Jury Trial Day 2, March 19, 2019, Page 52, Lines 1 through 20, as excerpted from the testimony of Attorney Criss Calendaria:

    "Q. Okay. And have you ever learned new information in between the filing of a brief and before a reply brief that could result in you requesting relief from the Court to add new issues before the answer was filed?
    "MR. CARTER: Objection. Vague.
    "THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
    "A. There is a procedure whereby you can ask them, say, 'Hey, look, I just found this stuff out, Judge. I'd like to be able to address this because it's part of the record.'
    But, you know, usually -- because we're all electronic reporting in Navajo County, and we don't have court reporters, sometimes the machines don't work and you don't have a transcript at all, so I have to deal more with trying to reconstruct a record. So, thank God for court reporters. I'd never have electronic if I was a judge.
    MR. CHAMI: Thank you. Nothing further, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you for your appearance.
    MR. CANDELARIA: Thank you, Your Honor."

    In short, the people of Arizona, the courts, judges, lawyers, and parties to an action deserve the advantage offered by a Certified Court Reporter, as the maker and guardian of a record which is able to be produced upon request in a timely manner. The perceived savings offered by using ER will not matter when the recording fails and attorneys are forced to "reconstruct a record" from memory.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Tracy Jamieson, RDR, CRR
    Official Federal Court Reporter
    Arizona Court Reporter # 50117
    (520) 460-6449
    [email protected]



    Donna Terrell
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 10:48 AM
    I am strongly in opposition to these suggested rule changes. Members of the Public are entitled to the most accurate transcript of proceedings, which can only be provided by a Certified Court Reporter. Inaudible parts in the electronic recordings are all to common, and DO NOT serve the needs of the Public or the needs of the Attorneys serving the Public! There is no way to know that a recorded proceeding has been compromised due to the failings of the electronic recording. They don't work when people overspeak each other, or when attorneys walk across the courtroom away from microphones, etc. These can very adversely affect lives due to inefficient electronic recordings!
    Please vote against any changes to our current Rules. Thank you.

    Donna Terrell,
    RPR, RMR, RDR, CRR
    Certified Court Reporter
    Brush and Terrell
    12473 West Redfield Road
    El Mirage, AZ 85335
    623-561-8046
    [email protected]
    LM Reporting
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 11:19 AM
    I am in opposition of R-20-0013 because certified court reporters have an ethical responsibility to be keepers of the record and ensure the transcripts are accurate. ER has flaws such as words lost due to louder noises. Such interruptions are not fair to citizens that deserve an accurate record of their proceedings. ER poses a threat to people's lives and well-being. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Lorraine Milligan
    [email protected]
    623-221-9315
    gail ferguson
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 11:54 AM
    I am in opposition to the suggested rule change. I have been a court reporter for 33 years, the last 12 in Superior Court in Maricopa County. I have had trials with witnesses that had such heavy accents no recording could possibly decipher the content of their testimony. I've had trials with such fast witnesses that no recording could decipher the content of their testimony. The SKREM Task Force was rushed through without adequate consideration. The final report that was sent to the legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Thank you.

    Gail E. Ferguson
    Certified Court Reporter 50797
    [email protected]
    (323) 804-4553
    Charlotte
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 01:52 PM
    I have been a court reporter for 43 years, have been certified in three states, and have reported both in-court proceedings and depositions. I have also transcribed tapes from the court FTR systems. I can tell you that trying to create a record after-the-fact from tapes is a frustrating and often impossible task. The joy and benefit of having a Certified Court Reporter during proceedings allows that reporter to verify that everything said can be understood, heard, and transcribed. It is too late to try to create a record when the hearing is over and everyone has left, which is when a tape would be sent out for transcription. I am therefore strongly in opposition to these suggested rule changes. Everyone appearing in court is entitled to the most accurate transcript of proceedings, which can only be provided by a Certified Court Reporter.
    Respectfully submitted:

    Charlotte A. Powers, RMR, CSR, CRR, FCRR, CMRS
    503-312-8526
    [email protected]
    4845 E. Charleston Ave.
    Scottsdale, AZ 85254



    Tracy Johnston
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 02:17 PM
    Arizona Court Reporters Association (ACRA) is opposed to the proposed rule changes and attaches its Dissenting Opinion to the final report of the SKREM Task Force. We strongly urge no change to the current rules, as the proposed changes do not provide justice for the parties, are a grave disservice to the legal system, and do not provide for the best record available to the parties and public at large. Refer to the attachment for the complete basis of our opposition.

    Tracy Johnston
    Court Reporter
    ACRA President
    SKREM Task Force Committee Member
    622 W Zia Dr
    Tucson, AZ 85704
    520-488-9420
    [email protected]

    Attachments
    TaraKramer
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 03:17 PM
    I am against the proposed rule changes in the above matter. Certified court reporters have ethical responsibilities in the stenograph reporting and producing of transcripts. Although an electronic recording system may seem to be an initial savings, it is my thought that there would be inevitable losses due to technological malfunctions that may not be immediately apparent, that by the time they are discovered would be too late to do anything about. A live certified court reporter present at proceedings where someone's life and liberty is at stake can ask for things to be repeated that a machine cannot, can stop people from talking over each other whereas a machine cannot. Please vote against these changes.

    Tara Kramer, RPR
    Certified Reporter
    [email protected]
    Cindy L.
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 03:21 PM
    I am OPPOSED to the rule changes for the same valid reasons already mentioned by many. In addition:
    There is no shortage of certified reporters. The Request a Certified Reporter program has been implemented, and counties statewide have utilized this program to request a certified reporter, and it has been VERY successful in filling their requests.
    There is an inability of the transcription agencies to produce transcripts timely from the FTR/ER recordings. They are consistently PAST DUE on the Court of Appeals website, and the transcripts are small pretrial matters consisting of 5 to 20 pages in length. Allowing them to do trials consisting of hundreds and thousands of pages will cause an even bigger delay to the appeal process. There's also NO accountability for these transcription agencies and NO measures in place to address issues that will certainly arise regarding recording/transcription errors and omissions.

    Please vote NO to these rule changes. Thank you!

    Cindy L. Lineburg
    602-363-9743
    [email protected]
    Lerryn Horton Roberds
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Apr 2020 09:07 PM
    I have been a Court Reporter for 38 years, 21 years in Superior Court. I now own a business that transcribes the audio produced from ER Courtrooms. It all goes well until the Clerk hits "Play" instead of "Record", or two speakers sound exactly the same and the transcriber cannot figure out who is saying what. Then when an attorney jumps up to object to another's question while both the other attorney and the witness are speaking at once, and his objection is completely garbled in the mayhem. How about jury selection? You have jurors responding in the back of the courtroom, not providing their name, and give details about their knowledge of the case and everyone in the back of the courtroom heard the prejudicial comments, but the ER system won't pick it up. Then there's the famous nod of the head instead of an answer and the only one that realized it was the Court Reporter who asked the witness to answer out loud.

    There are so many instances that occur on a regular basis in a courtroom that "trash" the record unless the highly-skilled Certified Court Reporter is present and is able to control the proceedings by asking witnesses to speak louder or to repeat their answer, asking a juror to state their name, asking the attorneys to please speak one at a time, identifying the person who made the loud comment from the back of the courtroom. Then comes the all too often "private" discussion between the attorney and his client where they whisper quietly so no one can hear it except the transcriber who transcribed the comments, or the opposing counsel who purchased the CD and heard their conversation. The Court Reporter knows without hesitation to not include those discussions in the record. None of this can be adequately captured by simply pushing a button!

    The Certified Court Reporter is highly-trained in legal jargon and expert terminology. They listen intently, and immediately either clarify or request a repeat of an "inaudible" response or question. The ER system simply records the proceeding including the parts that are not discernible, and the moment is lost to clarify the record.

    This rule change is a TERRIBLE idea for so many reasons. No person is a litigant in the Superior Court because they want to be there. They are either charged with a crime where their life and liberty may be at stake, or civil cases where the outcome can literally leave them penniless. Please explain to me which part of the record in their case is okay to be compromised, even slightly! This is not a money-saver and is a very bad idea, and I completely OPPOSE any attempt to compromise the Official Record of Proceedings in Arizona's only Court of Record!

    Respectfully Submitted:

    Lerryn Horton Roberds, RPR CCR
    6170 East Treadway Trail
    Flagstaff, Arizona 86004
    928-213-1040
    [email protected]
    Barbara H. Stockford
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 07:15 AM
    • I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Barbara H. Stockford
    Official Court Reporter
    401 W. Washington Street, Spc. 39
    Phoenix, AZ 85003
    480-332-7407
    [email protected]
    Kristyn Lobry
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 08:36 AM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.


    Kristyn Lobry, RPR
    Official Court Reporter
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    [email protected]
    602-506-1608
    ecropper
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 08:43 AM
    Good morning,

    I have been a court reporter for 41 years. I currently work in the Federal Courthouse in Phoenix. The supreme manner of record-keeping in courts is with a real-time reporter, NOT an audio recording. A court reporter's sole job is to put the spoken word into the written word as quickly, as efficiently, and as cost-effective as possible. A real-time court reporter can provide INSTANT access to the printed word, something that an audio recording cannot, and never will be able to do with the same accuracy as a certified court reporter. Please do not deny litigants their right to a supreme written record of their proceedings.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Thank you.

    Elaine Cropper, RDR, CRR, CCP
    Official Court Reporter
    United States District Court
    401 West Washington Street, Suite 312, SPC 35
    Phoenix, AZ 85003-2150
    Mike Farro
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 10:09 AM
    I am in OPPOSITION of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives, property, freedom and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote AGAINST any changes to the current rules.

    Michael E. Farro
    Attorney at Law
    3533 Canyon de Flores, Suite B
    Sierra Vista, Arizona 85650
    (520) 458-8494
    KMD
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 10:17 AM
    As a freelance court reporter for over 30 years in Arizona, and having transcribed audio from hearings through ER courtrooms after the fact, I can aver that the live, in-person court reporter produces a superior record over the ER. People's lives and liberties are at stake. We need live court reporters in courtrooms. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Thank you for your time and attention.

    Karine Moore-Deysie, RPR
    No. 50293
    779 S. Dodge St.
    Gilbert, Arizona 85233
    (480) 203-9959
    [email protected]
    Michaela H. Davis, RPR, CRR, CRC, CLR
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 10:24 AM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Michaela H. Davis, RPR, CRR, CRC, CLR
    Freelance Court Reporter
    AZ CR #50574
    Phoenix, AZ
    [email protected]
    Theresa Salsberry
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 10:30 AM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical duties to take down accurate testimony and production of transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Theresa Salsberry
    Certified Court Reporter
    [email protected]
    401 East Spring Street
    Kingman, AZ 86401
    Lorena
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 10:53 AM
    I am frequently asked to transcribe court proceedings from electronic files. Some of the difficulties I have encountered are as follows: people speaking at the same time, I can’t discern “can” from “can’t” and have to put (indiscernible) or (inaudible), sometimes speakers speak too closely and loudly into the microphone and the content is distorted and indiscernible even though the judge comments on the record that the light is on and is picking them up, somebody speaks unintelligibly in rapid spurts, difficult dialects, multiple male speakers where I can’t discern who is speaking when there is no accompanying video, and somebody speaking who is walking around as they hand exhibits to the witness and the microphone doesn’t pick them up adequately.

    Live court reporters are the guardians of the record to ensure problems are remedied for an accurate record, therefore, I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Lorena Marin-Garcia, RPR, RMR, CRR
    Arizona Registered Reporter 50541
    [email protected]
    2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    602.512.1300

    Sonia Vaca
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 11:19 AM
    I am in OPPOSITION to Rule R-20-0013 and STRONGLY urge you to vote against it.

    The legislature heard HB2235 this legislative session. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Despite the fact that HB2235 failed in the House, it appears that now the Administrative Office of the Courts is attempting to sidestep both the will of the legislature and the opinions of the public by submitting Rule R-20-0013 that contains the same language as HB2235 in its original form. It suggests that this rule change is being rushed through, in the middle of a pandemic no less, in furtherance of the economic self-interests of ER companies, as well as those associated with the awarding of such contracts.

    I do not believe a satisfactory effort has been put forth to come up with creative solutions. For example, the Request a Reporter program through ACRA has been quite successful in assisting with the perceived court reporter shortage in outlying counties. I can attest to that because I recently was personally able to fulfill the need for a court reporter to cover one day of a murder trial for neighboring Gila County.

    I am one of 10 official court reporters at the Pinal County Superior Court located in Florence, Arizona. Before working as an official court reporter, I was a freelance court reporter for over 20 years covering administrative hearings, city court proceedings, depositions, public meetings, as well as court proceedings all over Arizona.

    My colleagues and I are certified court reporters. It is our ethical responsibility and our duty to create and maintain a verbatim record. We take every word that is spoken down verbatim. We understand that someone’s life and liberty may depend on that transcript. We too have been tasked with transcribing proceedings from digital recordings that were oftentimes incomplete, unintelligible, inaudible, and contained overlapping speech. We know firsthand the challenges of doing our best to produce a verbatim transcript from a digital medium that suffers from equipment failures and operator error.

    I love my job and the contribution I make every day in the pursuit of justice for all, not just for those who can afford to pay for a “live” court reporter to ensure an accurate record. It’s essential that we work together to improve efficiency while continuing to maintain our obligation to best serve the public interest.

    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Sonia Felix Vaca
    AZ Certified Reporter 50536
    Coalition of Arizona Court Reporters
    520-866-5480
    [email protected]
    Jackie
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 11:38 AM
    Jackie Allen
    Coalition of Arizona Court Reporters
    P. O. Box 1749
    Florence, Arizona 85132
    520-866-5443
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition to the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    H. Yeager
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 11:54 AM
    Hope Yeager, CR, RPR
    1205 E. Muirwood Drive
    Phoenix, AZ 85048
    602.372.4552
    [email protected]

    I strongly oppose any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
    Thank you.
    DC
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 12:12 PM
    I've been a certified court reporter for 36 years in New Mexico (6 years), Utah (11 years), and now in Arizona (19 years) and strongly oppose this legislation. I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Deborah Cleary, RPR, CR (Arizona)
    [email protected]
    Goodyear, Arizona
    Leo Mankiewicz
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 12:16 PM
    Dear your Honors,

    Please consider carefully this - once again- attempt to wrest the integrity record from the court reporters who have been faithfully and professionally keeping it for over a hundred years. There are multiple examples of digital recordings being lost, or important parts of them being rendered "inaudible" or "incomprehensible" because of a technical glitch, or even a cough at an inopportune time. NO ONE guards the integrity of the record like a certified, experienced court reporter. Court clerks have their own set of priorities and tasks, as of course do the jurists. Everyone else follows the flow of proceedings, getting the gist and picking up on salient bits of evidence, but NO ONE is hanging on every word, like the court reporters do. No digital recording will EVER interrupt proceedings to ask, "I'm sorry, could you repeat that answer?" We are listening, guarding the record. We love our job, and we love to do it diligently.

    We understand that court administrators and the judiciary must keep an eye on their budgets, but transcripts and reporters have rarely been the "budget breakers" in the flow of litigation. Aside from considerations of economy, there are the rights of litigants, whether wealthy civil litigants or indigent criminal defendants, to a reliable record.

    Therefore, we ask you to reconsider the wording of this petition, designed as an end-run to the failed legislation, as a bad idea.

    Leo Mankiewicz
    [email protected]
    Surprise, AZ
    Traci Reed
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 01:00 PM
    Traci J. Reed, RPR
    P.O. Box 1748
    Florence, Arizona, 85132
    520 866-5424


    I am opposed to this bill because court proceedings are too important to be left to the means of an ER system to record and then have a random transcriptionist transcribe it. I've worked in Maricopa County, as well as Pinal County, and I've seen many, many instances where the ER system failed. They break down which causes the proceedings to cease until they can be fixed. The clerks sometimes forget to turn them on or eve on and they can even be hacked and modified. A Certified Reporter has ethical duties to transcribe the proceedings verbatim, the ER does not and neither does the transcriptionist. The transcriptionist will simply transcribe what they think they heard and if anyone speaks over another, they will just include in the transcript "inaudible." They are not present to stop any speaker or clarify the spoken word. The Certified Reporter is a highly trained and skilled individual and takes their jobs Very seriously......a recording system does NOT.

    I have been a Certified Reporter for over 23 years and I have seen many, many situations like the ones mentioned above. Please Oppose the proposed bill and keep it a requirement for a Certified Reporter to be present when dealing with such extremely important matters such as Life and Liberty, the participants in any court proceeding deserve it.


    Thank you for your time and consideration in this very important decision that is to be made.

    Traci J. Reed, RPR
    P.O. Box 1748
    Florence, Arizona, 85132
    520 866-5424
    Aaron Schlesinger
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 01:03 PM
    I oppose the suggested rule changes. Superior Courts are a court of record, and that record is best made by a court reporter with a human brain and a human ear. Any ER system, no matter how sophisticated, doesn't know that it can't hear, and it doesn't know the conversation it can hear between an attorney and client is not meant to be part of the record. I have been a court reporter for 27 years working mainly in Superior Court, and the "art" of making a good record is more challenging now than ever. People talk faster. People talk over each other, and telephonic appearances are more widely accepted. A court reporter can address these challenges in real time and make a more accurate and complete record.

    Then there is the cost to litigants. Court reporters charge $.280 to $3.50 per page for transcripts, whereas most ER transcription companies start at $5.00 per page and can't provide real time or next day transcripts.

    The shortage of court reporters is a real problem, but that can be addressed under the current rules governing the use of ER and the Request a Reporter program. Greater cooperation between counties and a willingness to share their reporters could also be considered. These proposed rule changes go far beyond modernizing the language in existing rules. They change the inherent and fundamental nature of a court of record.

    Aaron Schlesinger
    Arizona Certified Reporter #50095
    (520) 266-9923
    [email protected]
    Pete Kline
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 01:22 PM


    I have been practicing law in Arizona for 39 years. The electronic recording systems have not been reliable so I have routinely requested a certified court reporter to ensure an accurate record. Most of my colleagues have the same practice. Peoples lives and liberties depend on a complete and accurate record. The stakes are too high and the electronic systems used often do not capture crucial statements made in court. The effort to expand their use should be rejected.

    Pete Kline
    Crawford & Kline PLC
    1920 E. Southern Avenue
    Suite 101
    Tempe, Arizona 85282-7537
    Phone: 480-491-5100
    Carrie Cariati
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 01:29 PM
    • I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. There are numerous flaws in the ER system from the perspective of stenographers who actually perform the tedious task of transcribing these audio recordings from the court such as missing audio, microphones picking up louder than the participants papers shuffling, coughing, low speakers, etc., cameras facing the wall rather than the actual person(s) speaking so you are unable to identify the speakers, judges leafing through binders next to their microphones during proceedings, just to highlight a few of the issues. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Carrie Cariati, RPR, CRR
    2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700
    Phoenix, AZ 85014
    480-429-7573
    [email protected]
    Ryan Masciola
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 01:36 PM
    I STRONGLY OPPOSE this rule change. How is it appropriate to ignore the statutes by making a rule change? I am an Arizona native, a taxpayer and a voter. Judges should uphold the laws that the legislature decide are in the peoples best interest. This change would not benefit Arizonans. Litigants will suffer with an inaccurate record.

    Vote NO.

    Ryan Masciola
    Phoenix. AZ
    602-339-1750
    [email protected]
    C. Rolf Eckel
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 02:13 PM
    This Rule change petition is STRONGLY SUPPORTED by the Arizona Association of Superior Court Administrators (AASCA).

    As the association that is comprised of the professional managers responsible for the effective and efficient delivery of justice in the primary courts of record in Arizona, we fully support this petition. We recognize the concerns raised by court reporters about the petition, but believe they do not consider the realities faced by judges and administrators in all states, including Arizona, to ensure that the timely administration of justice can occur. The reality of the court reporting industry is that as the average age of court reporters nationally rise, the supply of new court reporters continues to fall. A significant percentage of court reporting education programs have closed all over the country, and those that remain open face a dropout rate between 80 and 85%, according to the Wall Street Journal. All Superior Court locations throughout the state have faced this reality for years with chronic shortages of qualified and available reporters and the increasing dependence on electronic recording systems. Fortunately, technology improvements have been substantial since the last time Arizona’s Judicial Branch explored this issue in 2005. The implementation of digital recording systems in many courthouses around the state have helped preserve the integrity of the verbatim record while coping with the reporter shortage. Labor statistics show a continuing drop in the actual number of court reporter jobs as more courts adapt to these realities. For the last five years, almost a third of the states have switched exclusively to electronic recording, but we are thankful that we are not in that situation. We strongly believe that to ensure courts can provide timely transcripts and accurately record all proceedings required under Arizona statutes and rules, court leadership must be given the administrative flexibility to utilize all options available to capture the verbatim record. Our association has watched the national and local trends for years and have expressed concerns in other forums about the declining availability of court reporters and the increased promise of the technological advancements in the electronic recording industry. So when Chief Justice Bales convened the Arizona Supreme Court Task Force to Supplement Keeping of the Record by Electronic Means in May of 2019, the association was in complete support of the undertaking. Nothing has changed in this past year that would cause our group to believe that giving judges and administrators flexibility to determine how to capture the verbatim record is anything but in the best interest of justice and those who seek it.

    Respectfully submitted by:
    C. Rolf Eckel, AASCA President
    Court Administrator
    Arizona Superior Court in Yavapai County
    120 S. Cortez St, Prescott AZ 86305
    928-771-3168
    [email protected]

    Bob James, AASCA Member
    Deputy Court Administrator
    Judicial Branch of Arizona in Maricopa County
    125 W. Washington St, Phoenix AZ 85003
    602-506-6314
    [email protected]

    Attachments
    Laura Miller
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 02:13 PM
    To Whom it May Concern:

    I strongly oppose the rule changes that have been proposed. I have been a court reporter for 43 years and have seen huge technological advances in both the court reporting profession and the operation of the courts. In 2005 I was in attendance for all the meetings held by the Keeping the Record Committee. At that time it was determined that due to what was at stake grand jury, first degree murder cases, felony jury trials, and initial determination of sexually violent persons' proceedings would all require a court reporter and they would be the official record. Since 2005, there have been more advances in technology but the electronic recording system is not one of them.

    I have transcribed hundreds of electronic recordings and the vast majority of the recordings are not high quality. It saddens me that our highest judicial branch in Arizona does not view the written transcript important. That inaudibles and indiscernibles have become acceptable and a litigant's right to a full and complete record is taking a backseat. It is the court reporter that takes charge when there is chaos in the courtroom. It is our duty to hear EVERY word that is spoken, not every other word or just the gist of what is being said.

    It is absolutely true that court reporters produce the most accurate transcripts and they are filed in a timely manner as required by statutes, by rules, by guidelines, by demand of parties. The State through our license has control over our transcripts as there are sanctions if not accurate or are not filed timely. This is very important. Who do you hold responsible if transcripts are inaccurate or not filed timely when it is an electronic recording?

    One last comment. It seems this issue of electronic recording has taken "wings" due to a couple small courts in outlying areas not being able to hire court reporters. This is no longer an issue as ACRA has implemented a program to match up freelance reporters with courts in need. There are many court reporters who are happy to travel to these courts, we just needed to know that there was a need.

    I ask you to please vote no against any changes to the current rules. This is not the time.

    Laura Miller
    Court Reporter
    P.O. Box 11976
    Casa Grande, AZ 85130
    [email protected]


    C. Rolf Eckel
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    29 Apr 2020 02:39 PM
    C. Rolf Eckel, AASCA President
    Court Administrator
    Arizona Superior Court in Yavapai County
    120 S. Cortez St, Prescott AZ 86305
    928-771-3168
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    Chelsea
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 07:52 AM
    Chelsea Voigt, RPR
    401 E Spring Street
    Kingman, Arizona 86402
    [email protected]
    928-753-0790 ext 4394


    I am opposed to this. A certified court reporter ensures an accurate, clear, and complete record. Electronic recordings do not ensure an accurate, clear, or complete record. We try to do transcripts from electronic recordings and there are many areas where we cannot make out what was said or who was saying it. A certified reporter who is there present at a proceeding makes sure that there is none of that. A certified reporter makes sure that the record is as it should and must be. To change that is putting everyone at a huge disadvantage.



    Michele Kaley
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 10:53 AM
    Michele Kaley
    3018 N 28th St
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    (480) 558-6620

    To Whom It May Concern:

    This is a letter in opposition of this modification. In an attempt to be concise and not repeat the very well-written comments of everyone thus far, I will say that I echo the statements of every person who has commented opposing this rule change.

    I have been a court reporter for 25 years. One of the biggest concerns I have with this modification will be the lack of available real-time proceedings afforded to our judicial officers. With every passing year and judicial rotation, our real-time popularity is growing with judges who depend on us to help rule on objections and assist in refreshing their recollection. Moreover, we have been providing real-time for judges who have difficulty hearing and seeing for years.

    Personally, I had a witness on the stand with a very thick accent. During a recess, the judge informed me that he relied solely on my real-time because he could not comprehend what the witness was saying. Leaving a difficult witness like that to someone who has to rely on not having the benefit of being able to see the person while speaking or asking them to repeat something vital puts the record in great jeopardy. Consider an expert medical opinion that is lost in translation for the appellate courts to see only a parenthetical (inaudible). That one word could create so many expensive issues. And if a trial is overturned and sent back to the lower courts, to try and recreate a record creates additional complications; one being that the expert may no longer be available.

    Thank you for your time. Please deny this modification.

    Gary
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 12:22 PM
    I am OPPOSED to R-20-0013. Please, please, please take a few minutes to read the ACRA Minority Position Statement in response to the final report of the SKREM Task Force. This five and a half page document expresses succinctly why you should vote AGAINST the proposed rule changes.

    Gary W. Hill, RMR, CRR
    Peoria, Arizona 85383
    [email protected]
    (480) 341-1198

    Coalition of Arizona Court Reporters
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 12:24 PM
    To Whom it May Concern:

    The Coalition of Arizona Certified reporters respectfully wishes to share an opinion about the proposed Rule entitled R-20-0013, Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings.
    We are in OPPOSITION to this rule change for many reasons.

    It is our opinion that R-20-0013 is a mirror image of the proposed statutory changes that were proposed earlier this year in HB2355, and that Bill was not passed. The proposed language in R-20-0013 is in direct conflict with what the legislature found was in the best interest of the public; namely, to keep the current practices in place where certified reporters are mandated, which is to cover grand jury proceedings, felony jury trials, death penalty trials, initial determinations of sexually violent person status, and proceedings on a request for authorization of abortion without parental consent. It was found that these court matters were too important to risk not having a verbatim record for appeal.

    We join in ACRA’s Minority Position Statement and dissenting opinion following the Task Force meetings and feel it would be duplicitous to reiterate the same information contained in that submittal.
    Claims have been made about the shortage of certified reporters. There is still a very affordable brick and mortar school teaching court reporting in the Phoenix area as well as many online institutions. There are programs called “A to Z” and “Project Steno” which allow students to see what it is all about before signing up in a formal program, which has lowered the drop-out rate. Since this claim has been made last May, the “Request a Reporter” program through Arizona Certified Reporters Association has been in effect and has covered every assignment with the exception of when a certified reporter was requested on a Friday for a Monday hearing in an outlying area, so these false claims are not the reality of certified reporter availability in Arizona.

    If this rule change is successful, it could have the effect of preventing future certified reporters from entering this career field from the perceived erroneous notion that there is no demand for certified reporters, which would further exacerbate the situation.

    Some states have chosen to employ digital recording instead of a live certified reporter, and the results included increased costs, equipment failures that resulted in expensive retrials, constant maintenance and upgrades, and higher transcription costs for inferior transcripts or no transcripts at all if the equipment failed.

    Texas went to digital recording, then brought back certified reporters citing that it was more cost effective and efficient, and no digital recording can provide realtime, something only a human can do.

    New Mexico also tried using a recording system, and then brought back certified reporters citing unexpected costs, backlog of cases at the appellate level, and additional personnel costs.

    Florida’s Supreme Court is currently reviewing an appellate decision to determine what the official record is, whether it is the recording or the transcript. Having the recording be the official transcript is dangerous, as it also records confidential conversations between clients and attorneys on a daily basis. A certified reporter knows what is on the record and what is not on the record.

    Federal courts took part in a two-year study and determined that with recorded testimony, it took too long to find a specific portion when looking for it.

    New York has prohibited the use of recording devices and requires a certified reporter based on complaints about the quality of transcripts generated by electronic recordings.

    Kentucky reported that the use of recording equipment resulted in retrials at much cost, and too much time spent by attorneys reviewing the recordings.

    Illinois spent the money to install recording devices, but they sit idle. The judges refuse to use it, stating they do not want to watch television.

    Oregon has called for the return of certified reporters due to missing or inaudible recordings, including from a murder case and complex civil cases. Attorneys were hiring their own certified reporters for fear of an inaccurate record.

    Hawaii had a disastrous loss of nearly 100 grand jury indictments due to an equipment malfunction and now relies exclusively on certified reporters.

    Nevada tried recording equipment, and after three years made the decision that the costs were higher, and it is an inferior service compared to a certified reporter.

    All of these states made the poor decision to rely exclusively on a recording system and found out the hard way – at the expense of the taxpayers and the litigants – that it was the wrong choice every time.

    As far as the false notion that transcripts would be produced in a timelier manner, that is simply not the truth. Certified reporters are given deadlines for transcripts and are supervised and can be penalized for untimely transcript production. There is no penalty or oversight for outside transcribers. The accountability factor is gone, and the pride in workmanship is gone. One needs only to look at the Court of Appeal Transcript Due index to see the constant and voluminous past due transcripts arising from the digital recording. In fact, in these difficult times with Covid-19, official certified reporters have stepped in and taken on transcribing some of the outstanding digital recordings where no certified reporter was present in order to alleviate this backlog of past due transcripts.

    Electronic recording is a wonderful tool, but it will never replace a live certified reporter in the courtroom. During the legislative session earlier this year regarding HB2355, Representative Domingo DeGrazia made the comparison of a skydiver to a electronic recording. He explained that the sky diver has a primary parachute and an emergency parachute. He compared relying on a recording to throwing away the main parachute and relying on the emergency backup chute. Why would someone endanger their life in that way?

    Yet in the courtroom on a daily basis, peoples’ lives and liberty are at stake, and this Rule is throwing away the main parachute to rely on an emergency backup. The difference is the sky diver has a choice. The citizens of Arizona aren’t making this choice. The citizens of Arizona deserve better.

    Arizona citizens deserve to have their right to a verbatim record and their right to justice upheld, and it would be a disservice to all litigants to take the certified reporter out of the courtroom.

    Certified reporters have been ahead of the rest of the legal system in applying digital technology in the workplace. Reporter-based technologies such as realtime enhance the functioning of the judicial system in both headline trials and everyday depositions. Embracing technology that supports and enhances the efficient operations of the courts is one thing; naïve dependence on technology and the elimination of human judgment and wisdom is quite another. Put simply, employing the services of a realtime certified reporter in a well-managed courtroom ensures a complete, accurate, secure, and instant record of what was said for immediate use by attorneys and judges. Digital audio or video cannot make that guarantee.

    In closing, if this proposal is truly trying to solve a perceived problem and to SUPPLEMENT certified reporters in ONLY outlying counties that are not able to obtain a certified reporter, as has been repeatedly stated and argued by the Administrative Office of the Courts, rather than eliminating ALL certified reporters in ALL court hearings as this proposal proposes, the language could and should be rewritten to address those specific matters instead of this complete rewrite of the rule which flies in the face of the legislative decision and public best interest. Regardless, the statutorily mandated hearings of grand jury proceedings, felony jury trials, death penalty trials, initial determinations of sexually violent person status, and proceedings on a request for authorization of abortion without parental consent should always be protected and require a certified reporter to create and protect the record.

    Much time and effort was put into educating the public, attorneys, and judges about the proposed language changes and the dangers it poses to all litigants and their right to have a verbatim record preserved for appellate purposes, and their voices were heard. We are raising our voices again.

    We are urging that this proposed Rule change be denied.

    Respectfully,
    COALITION OF ARIZONA COURT REPORTERS
    c/o Angela Miller
    623-975-7472
    [email protected]
    Marcella Daughtry
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 12:34 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Marcella Daughtry, RMR, RPR
    Freelance Court Reporter
    22884 South 194th Street, Queen Creek, Arizona 85142
    602-550-6223
    [email protected]
    slmunter
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 12:40 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    I have been reporting for over 30 years and have been asked to transcribe these electronic hearings. The audio is awful. Never in my 30 years have I ever inserted the word "inaudible" into a transcript where I am physically present, either in person or, as in the current COVID state, where I am present remotely, but while recently asked by a client to transcribe a one-hour hearing, I inserted the word "inaudible" a minimum of ten times. Not to mention the number of times I transcribed what I "think" I heard, versus what I "know" I heard on the tape. By tape recording these proceedings, you are doing injustice to all parties involved.
    Sandra Munter
    3932 E Torrey Pines Ln
    Chandler, AZ 85249
    602.692.0320
    AZ Cert 50348
    Benjamin
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 01:10 PM
    Benjamin C. Bamford, RPR
    [email protected]

    I strongly oppose this rule change. It is absurd to think courts will rely specifically on electronic recordings. I have transcribed many of these over the past few years and oftentimes you can't make out what was said or who said it. It is far from ideal and in no way should be considered to be the official record.

    Technology does not need to replace court reporters, but instead benefit court reporters. Please vote no against this proposed rule change. Thank you.
    Deborah Serrata
    New Member
    Posts:11 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 01:33 PM
    KENNETH N. VICK
    CHIEF DEPUTY
    225 WEST MADISON STREET
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
    TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800
    [email protected]
    (STATE BAR NUMBER 017540)

    R-20-0013

    MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S COMMENT IN OPPOSITION
    Attachments
    Rossana
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 01:50 PM
    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice.
    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the FinalReport that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole.
    Our country is going through a trying time in light of COVID-19, and many courts are proceeding with differing means of making a record with videoconferencing and telephonically. A live court reporter being present is essential.
    Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Rossana K. Baker, CR-RMR
    Freelance Court Reporter
    Post Office Box 1182
    Flagstaff, Arizona 86002
    (928) 380-1964
    [email protected]
    LoriZucco
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 02:19 PM
    Lori Zucco
    Chief Criminal Deputy
    Cochise County Attorney's Office
    150 Quality Hill
    PO Drawer CA
    Bisbee, AZ 85603
    520-432-8705
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition to this rule change. Certified Court Reporters are an essential part of the criminal justice system. They have an ethical duty to make an accurate record, vital to our grand jury proceedings, changes of plea and sentencing hearings, and jury trials.

    During trials and hearings when the attorneys and the witnesses start talking over each other, the Court Reporter stops the proceeding, asks the parties to speak one at a time, and makes sure there is an accurate record. If a mere audio recording is made for later transcription, the entire portion where people are talking over each other will probably read "inaudible," which is useless for a record.

    The function of a Court Reporter simply cannot be replicated by an audio recording and transcription. Our Justice Courts use this method exclusively and I have had to grapple with this very issue when litigating preliminary hearing challenges based upon this type of prepared transcript. I cannot imagine the issues that will arise in appeals in homicide and other serious cases if we are forced to use this inadequate method.

    Sincerely,

    /s/ Lori Zucco
    April Escobedo
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 03:06 PM
    April Escobedo, RPR
    2808 N. Pennington Dr.
    Chandler, AZ 85224
    (480)332-7850
    [email protected]

    I am in opposition to the suggested rule change. I have been a certified court reporter for 22 years. I have witnessed weekly electronic recording failures. The technology is not advanced enough, even in 2020. This year a judge contacted the Court Reporting Department requesting a court reporter for a lengthy hearing they had to redo. The electronic recording did not record for two hours.

    There is not only technical difficulties, but also operator error. I have heard numerous times in court the bailiff say they forgot to turn on the FTR.

    I have transcribed many transcripts from digital recordings. I completed a settlement conference where I had to state (INAUDIBLE) for many of the judge's comments. The judge was not by a microphone and his voice could not be heard.

    The proposed language change for 12.7 Record of Grand Jury Proceedings states, "Any arrangements must ensure that no images of grand jurors are taken or captured." What about the protection of witnesses? Many are undercover police officers. How can their images and voices be protected by an electronic recording device?

    I ask you to please vote against Proposed Rule R-20-0013.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    April Escobedo
    K. Wunsch
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 03:07 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities and training in taking down testimony and in the production of transcripts. A human being who has a focus of obtaining a good transcript during a court proceeding has proven time and time again to be imperative for obtaining the most accurate record and for producing a readable and useful transcript. Electronic recording increases the likelihood of unknown equipment malfunction, inaudible portions in the transcript, unknown speakers, and otherwise inaccurate transcripts. These are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Kristen L. Wunsch, RPR
    Certified Reporter No. 50719

    [email protected]
    602-615-0968
    Michele Balmer
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 03:25 PM

    The court systems in Arizona are already using a blend of technology that includes certified court reporters and digital recording. While some language in the rules and statutes needs to be updated to reflect that current reality, it should not involve removing protections around the five types of proceedings that currently require a certified court reporter, which includes grand jury proceedings, capital cases, felony jury trials, initial determination of sexually violent person status, and requests for authorization of abortion with parental consent.


    As stated in the Final Report of the SKREM Task Force authored by the Chair, the Honorable Samuel A. Thumma, it describes what was a “largely mechanical task of identifying and capturing possible changes to statutes, rules and the ACJA,” and that “Adopting such changes, particularly as they apply to “[g]rand jury proceedings” where no judicial officer is present, would implicate significant policy issues, which are beyond the scope of the charge of the task force.”


    While the SKREM Task Force was not tasked with considering policy issues and was focused strictly on language changes to accomplish a specific goal, the Supreme Court’s Keeping the Record Committee was focused on policy and best practices. While technology has significantly changed in the last 15 years since the Keeping the Record Committee’s recommendations, there is still not a more accurate, efficient, and more secure way to capture, for example, Grand Jury proceedings than a certified court reporter. This is one of the reasons that the recommended statute changes in HB2235 failed to pass this year, and, as a result, A.R.S. 21-411, Appointment of reporter; transcript, relating to grand jury proceedings remains unchanged and would conflict with the Supreme Court Rules if these proposed amendments are adopted.


    I am opposed to any changes that would allow the electronic recording only of Grand Jury proceedings, capital cases, and felony jury trials, and any proceeding that is of such a serious nature that only the best record-making method should be utilized, and that is still a certified court reporter.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Michele E. Balmer, RPR
    AZ Certified Reporter # 50489
    Yuma Court Reporters, LLC
    301 S. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3
    Yuma, Arizona 85364
    480.720.2153
    [email protected]

    cindy
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 03:38 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified court reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules. Thank you.

    Cindy Mahoney, RPR, RMR
    Freelance Reporter
    17394 W. Pima St.
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    623-512-7069
    [email protected]
    Ty Taber
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 05:08 PM
    J. Tyrrell Taber
    Ty Taber
    Burg Simpson
    2390 E. Camelback Rd.
    Suite 403
    Phoenix Az 85016
    [email protected]


    I am opposed to the amendments to the Rules restricting the ability of Court Reporters to continue to make the verbatim record.

    Access to a record made by a certified Court Reporter has been invaluable to the preservation of what was actually said during legal proceedings. There is no substitute for the presence of a Court Reporter, opposing counsel, and often times the Court to insure the creation of accurate and reliable record.

    While video and audio tapes exist, they are a poor substitute. I am aware of and have been involved in numerous disputes about what was said in the absence of a court reporter that could not be clarified because the recording was inaudible or inaccessible due to some mechanical malfunction.

    This issue is important to me as a trial lawyer and an attorney member of the Arizona Court Reporter Board for years during some of the crucial times concerning the necessity of Court Reporters as an integral part of the Arizona system of justice.

    This issue has been debated for decades, all efforts to do away with, or limit the services of Court Reporters have been soundly rejected. This was the case, in our recent legislative session. The bill seeking to implement similar changes was defeated, that was the right thing.

    J. Tyrrell Taber
    .

    M Morrisette
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 05:44 PM
    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. If anything, the certified reporter has become an integral part within the judicial process by assisting judges in the courtroom and providing a real-time transcript, thereby creating expediency and efficiency within the court proceedings. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on an electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I Oppose This Petition,

    M Morrisette, CSR#7342, CCR#50334
    [email protected]
    Sheryl Henke
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 06:29 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. Court reporters are invested in keeping an accurate record. There are no "inaudibles" in our transcripts. We are there to seek clarification in the case of speakers overlapping one another, noise interruptions, speakers with accents. We are there in person to see and identify who is speaking. We have expertise in the reporting of medical and expert testimony. Our skill set is unique and ER cannot replace the expertise of a court reporter. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    Sheryl Henke, RPR
    Goodyear, Arizona 85395
    [email protected]
    (623)734-2959


    Lee
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 06:54 PM
    Lee Hunter
    P. O. Box 76
    Taylor, AZ 85939
    [email protected]

    I have knowledge of cases that have been compromised on numerous levels because of technological difficulties. On numerous occasions when faced with listening to a recording, I have attempted to decipher the speaker(s) and that chore has proven almost impossible because of the elevated voices and the members of the proceedings all speaking at once. The time and expense that is wasted trying to decipher an ill-recorded proceeding in my opinion is, at times, far more costly than a court reporter's wages. The sense of security that a party feels by seeing a reporter in the courtroom is also a great asset. Individuals have an elevated awareness when they are recorded and feel it necessary to pay more attention to a microphone than to the words they are speaking as a response. They tend to be more nervous and muddle their words more. However, with a court reporter, parties just speak. They have a sense of confidence that the record is being correctly kept. Therefore, the cost savings, the sense of security by the parties and the general record of the court are all more secure when a reporter is physically present in the court.
    Lkuhnhenn
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 09:58 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Lauren Kuhnhenn, CCR, RPR
    [email protected]
    Michelle Parker
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2020 10:04 PM
    As an editor/scopist with 21 years’ experience, I’ve been a fly on the wall in many trials. While I do receive the transcript with full audio before I start, these challenges remain constant: (1) Many voices sound alike. Without a court reporter there to accurately identify each speaker (and stop two from speaking simultaneously), it’s impossible to distinguish who is speaking; (2) One juror’s cough or paper shuffled near the mic means critical words are missed. If there is no human there to recognize that moment and request clarification, it’s gone forever; (3) Portions of audio are often compromised, either due to static or electronics nearby; (4) Digital recorders can’t read lips. A burdened court system does not justify a shoddy record. Court reporters are the best of the best in a field where only 6 to 8 percent pass the test. Why not recognize how critical team effort is – a team effort that starts with respecting the one person tasked with getting every single word that every single person utters? I have only one more question for anyone still with me here: How did your last conversation with Siri go?

    Michelle Parker
    500 N. Estrella Pkwy.
    Ste. B2-242
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    [email protected]
    Mary Davis
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 07:56 AM
    I am against any change to the current rules. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities when taking down testimony and producing our transcripts. To rely on electronic recording would leave too many opportunities for error. I have experienced these difficulties in using electronic recording. People's lives and liberty depend on an accurate record and court hearings need a certified court reporter to preserve the testimony. Please vote against any changes to the current rule

    Mary Davis, RPR
    [email protected]
    480-229-9096
    LisaNance
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 09:06 AM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Lisa A Nance
    4232 W. McLellan Blvd
    Phoenix, AZ 85019-1230
    623 203-7525
    [email protected]
    Gerard Coash
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 09:34 AM
    Gerard T. Coash
    [email protected]
    602-689-0706
    1215 West Lawrence Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85021

    I am in opposition to this rule change. Please vote against it. The integrity of the record is at stake. The inherent inaccuracy and unreliability of electronic recording will compromise judicial proceedings for years to come if this is passed.
    State Bar of Arizona
    Basic Member
    Posts:101 Basic Member

    --
    01 May 2020 11:57 AM
    Comment of the State Bar of Arizona.

    Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
    (602) 340-7236
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    Marianne
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 12:06 PM
    To Whom It May Concern:

    I have been a court reporter since 1978. I spent 21 years working in the Maricopa County Superior Court covering all calendars: civil, criminal, and family court. While there, I feel the court reporters do a just and accurate and timely service to the judicial system. We are able to read back testimony on the spot and provide expedited transcripts for the lawyers when they need it. One important service I assisted the judges for whom I worked was particularly in regard to the criminal court proceedings. As you may know, dates are important. If a date is missed between the time of a change of plea to the time of sentencing, for instance, it is possible that that could jeopardize that case necessitating starting again and incurring the extra costs of transporting a defendant from where he or she is confined back to court. I know the judge appreciated it if I questioned him on whether he actually meant the date he said on the record. It is the human element that allows that.
    In addition, we are required to be governed by the Supreme Court and also are required to achieve continuing education every year. There seems to be absolutely no scrutiny when it comes to whomever or whatever it is that transcribes important proceedings in the courts.
    I currently am a freelance reporter.
    It is so important not to risk the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record of the proceedings. We have ethical responsibilities to take down the testimony and provide transcripts. We are able to control the environment by asking lawyers to slow down or to make sure there are no overlapping voices. Those are things an electronic device cannot do.
    I strongly urge you to consider these attributes we provide. I know there are many more I could provide for you.
    Please vote against any changes to the current rules.
    Thank you very much.

    Marianne S. Burton, RPR
    BB&S Reporting Services
    480-236-4227
    [email protected]
    Elizabeth Bingert
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 01:08 PM
    Elizabeth Bingert
    1622 W Wilshire Dr
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    602-999-1150
    [email protected]
    Bar No.: 030277

    I am a practicing attorney in Maricopa County, and I believe these proposed changes are premature given the current state of electronic recording technology currently used in Superior Court courtrooms.

    My practice focuses entirely on criminal law, and the courtrooms in which I practice currently use "For the Record" ("FTR") audio/visual recording. There are at least two instances that I can recall when FTR failed to sufficiently record a proceeding.

    The first was in 2016 and I needed to use a witness's testimony from a previous proceeding in a retrial. The audio was so poor that the judge would not allow me to present the recording in court. Thankfully, because we had a court reporter present in the first trial, I had an accurate transcript to read into the record.

    The second instance was in December 2019. During a lengthy, serious trial (over 30 charged counts), the FTR repeatedly froze. This happened multiple days and, but for the presence of the court reporter, we would have wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars waiting for the problem to be fixed. Even after the first repair, the system still froze. The presence of the court reporter was essential.

    I read the Supreme Court Task Force's report and found it interesting that their foremost recommendation was to increase recruitment efforts for court reporters. The tenor of their report seemed to indicate that any changes at this time may be premature.

    As a practical matter, if we were to rely on our current recording system, it would hinder the way our lawyers practice. To be tethered to a podium so that the microphone picks up my voice would negatively impact my ability to effectively present a case to the fact finder and move about the courtroom.
    Given the current state of technology, the system in Maricopa County is not ready to rely on electronic recording, especially in matters where the record's accuracy is crucial on appeal. There is too much at stake. The issue should be revisited if there are enough technological advances, but we are far from that point.
    Yes
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 02:19 PM
    Kelly Palmer
    3304 W. Papermill Rd.
    P.O Box 601
    Taylor, Arizona 85939


    To Whom it May Concern,

    Having worked as reporter since 1987, and in the last five years having had experience in transcribing digitally taped proceedings for the Court, I can avowal that a recording is never perfect. Why are attorneys and judges accepting the words "Indiscernible" "inaudible" or dashes all through the transcript? And when a hearing wasn't recorded for whatever technical issue or the recording is so bad you can't make it out, why is that okay?

    Our rights should have a greater role in the mindset of these rule changes. It is not acceptable for any litigant to have to pay extra due to a malfunction or a record that is insufficient. The few hearings that are still protected by the rules for the presence of a court reporter should remain as they are. The rural counties would have to invest a small fortune to update their systems for any recording of a trial or grand jury. If a digital tape has to be produced for a proceeding you can count on it not meeting the rule requirements on the timelines. Court Admin and attorneys have begged me to do transcripts from digital tapes just so they could comply with the rules. Transcriptionists are not held accountable for any timeline in the rules nor for a transcript that doesn't make any sense. I have seen so many words mis-transcribed by transcribers due to their lack of training in the fields that are handled in the courts. It is definitely not cheaper. Transcribers can charge what they want and an hourly fee for sitting and listening to the proceeding before they even begin to edit the transcript. I know of one company that is having high school students do their transcripts. If you want a transcript from a digital tape the next day, you will pay plenty for it, but I would say you wouldn't find a transcriptionist to even do it. The propaganda by the electronic media is misleading. Court Reporters are the best choice for accuracy and efficiency. Court Reporters have integrity and are professionals. There is not a shortage of reporters to cover the hearings that are now mandated by the rules to have a reporter.

    I have had to read back the record for the attorneys, Judge and a few times for the Jury in the last five trials I have reported. My Judge even commented that he would have had to declare a mistrial had we not been able to access the record on the spot like we did. I could give many instances where the recording has caused issues that otherwise would not have been.

    Respectfully I request that you consider the fallout that will take place if these changes are made. Litigants and the Courts will suffer unnecessarily and the acceptability of a flawed record will degrade the integrity of the justice system.

    Kelly Palmer
    3304 W. Papermill
    P.O. Box 601
    Taylor, Arizona 85939
    [email protected]



    Christopher Bradley
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 02:46 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. As a former Judicial Assistant assigned to the Criminal Court Administration of Superior Court, I have had the privilege of serving in a capacity which offered an in-person view of the means and methods by which a court functions. I was present when electronic recording was introduced as a test vehicle and its expansion from courtroom to courtroom. I have witnessed attorney-client communications recorded without the knowledge or consent of the parties. I have observed the loss of electronically recorded proceedings due to technical malfunction and human error, usually noted with the announcement “forgot to start the recording”. I have read transcripts littered with the term “inaudible” because the speaker did not speak clearly or loud enough for the recording devices and were not subjectively reviewed by a contractor whose sole responsibility is to churn out transcripts with little regard for the quality of that transcript, and yet still are unable to meet the turnaround requirements set by the courts. I have endured attorneys uncontrolled and speaking over each other as they continued unchecked only to later realize the electronic record was rendered unintelligible.
    I have also viewed technical failures encountered by the court reporter, at which point the reporter was capable of instantly notifying the court or continuing on as they maintain redundant and independent systems to ensure no loss of the record. I have witnessed courtroom participants encouraged by the court reporter to maintain decorum and keep a clear and concise record by advising the judicial officer. I have observed the court reporter provide additional services not normally provided to the court that support ADA guidelines on a moment’s notice and without adding delay to an already over-burdened system. I have seen the court reporter utilize new technologies in a responsible manner beneficial to the courts, acting as a voice to advise and assist the court where an electronic system cannot.
    These suggested rule changes do not protect the record and would represent a grave threat to due process and the proper preservation of criminal proceedings. The Task Force summary reported it “developed changes…to supplement court reporters…”, but these changes do not supplement the reporter, they allow for the replacement of the reporter by electronic recording. There is no stopgap within these rule changes that provide for the best alternative to be retained when keeping the record, it promotes the elimination of the certified court report. By eliminating the requirement that they shall be used for criminal cases, death penalty cases, grand jury proceedings and complex civil trials, the administration seeks to introduce risk without mitigation into the most critical of proceedings. The elimination these proceedings that require a certified reporter have been repeatedly upheld as too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of digital recording and is incredibly dangerous. By introducing requirements for the parties to undertake the burden of paying for a court reporter to be present, they are thereby deterring the use of one in place of electronic recording.
    The in-person court reporter acts as a responsible party, cognizant of their role and sworn duty to ensure the record is complete and correct. As our courts say themselves, “property, freedom and life all can depend on a clear and accurate record.” These recommended changes put the rights of individuals at risk. Please, protect the rights of Arizona residents. Preserve an accurate recording of proceedings.

    Chris Bradley
    Goodyear, AZ 85338
    602-686-6651
    [email protected]
    David Euchner
    New Member
    Posts:13 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 05:38 PM
    COMMENT OF ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REGARDING PETITION TO AMEND VARIOUS RULES OF PROCEDURE RELATED TO CREATING THE VERBATIM RECORD OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

    JARED G. KEENAN, AZ Bar No. 027068
    [email protected]
    Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
    P.O. Box 41213
    Phoenix, AZ 85080-1213
    (480)-812-1700
    Attachments
    Jennifer H
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 08:12 PM
    I OPPOSE this petition.

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    I am against any change to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

    The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole. Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Jennifer Honn
    2302 N Central Avenue, Unit 309
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    [email protected]
    480-290-9460
    AZ Certified Reporter 50885
    Christine
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 08:22 PM
    I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. The currently mandated proceedings are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of ER because property, freedom, and life all depend on a clear and accurate record. Please vote against any changes to the current rules. Certified Court Reporters have ethical responsibilities in taking down testimony and in the production of the transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely on electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules. The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 did a thorough study with all stakeholders present regarding what court hearings needed a certified court reporter to preserve testimony and what the best practices were. Nothing has changed since 2005 that would warrant changing the policy determinations previously made by the Arizona Supreme Court. People’s lives and liberty are at stake, and relying on electronic recording to create the record would be a major injustice. Please vote against any changes to the current rules. The SKREM Task Force last year was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest. The legislative language from the Final Report that was sent to the Legislature this year was dropped. The bill died because of many issues and recognition that this would be a huge disservice to the litigants and to our legal system as a whole.

    Please vote against any change to the current rules.

    Christine Johnson, RPR, RMR
    [email protected]
    Phoenix, Az
    kweek
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 09:11 PM
    I am writing in strong opposition to the R-20-0013 Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings.

    The court reporting profession has been the guardians of the record throughout all of recorded history. Don’t mistake the age of the profession as an indication that it is an outdated, antiquated method of capturing the record. Quite the opposite is true. Court reporters and the equipment they utilize in taking the record are oftentimes the most sophisticated technology in the room. The ability for a reporter to hear what is being said, stroke it on their steno machine, and have that immediately translated into readable English for the judicial officer presiding over the hearing is a remarkable feat of advanced technology. Reporters spend countless hours a year staying abreast of the technological changes and educating themselves on such changes to improve the product they produce for the participants in litigation, their transcripts. Attempting to replace the primary, gold standard of court reporters with what is and always will be a back up and subpar method of creating the record will not result in financial savings and creates a danger to the very citizens we are here to protect.

    I have been working as a court reporter for 17 years, the last five of which I have had the privilege of working as an official reporter in Maricopa County. The reporters working in the court system throughout the state understand the importance of their positions and take the responsibility very seriously. You will never get that type of dedication to the protection of the record from an audio recording and a transcriptionist.

    I have seen for myself the repeated failures of FTR, either through user error or technical failure. Sometimes that failure is not discovered until the hearing has concluded. However, when a reporter is present, they are able to immediately stop, interrupt, and ask for clarification or to have something repeated ensuring an accurate record. Reporters are bound by ethical guidelines to maintain impartiality thereby ensuring all participants, regardless of their circumstances, a full, complete, and accurate transcript.

    Please strongly consider the multitude of remarks you have received in opposition to this amendment from all types of stakeholders; average citizens, attorneys, as well as court reporters. Additionally, consider if it was your life hanging in the balance or that of a loved one, would you feel comfortable with having it rest on anything less than the gold standard.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Kristi Week, RPR
    Mesa, AZ
    [email protected]
    Ursula Pappas
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 11:19 PM
    Ursula H. Pappas, RMR, RPR, CCR-AZ, CSR-CA
    750 East Northern Avenue, #1115
    Phoenix, Arizona 85020
    602-795-3101. [email protected]

    I have been active in the field of court reporting for 50 years. I was employed as an official reporter in Pittsburgh in the state court and US District Court for 11 years, then owned and operated a court reporting agency there with approximately 35 employees for 30 years. Presently I contract my services to two large international court reporting agencies and work in the Phoenix area during the winter. I do this as I have always enjoyed my profession and enjoy working on legal cases.

    Years ago the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, PA) was going to install an electronic system to record all trials and dismiss the official reporters. The thought was it would be a huge cost savings. The electronic media companies gave proposals on efficiency, cost, no employees to contend with, a big savings on salaries/benefits, and the list went on. On paper, it looked good. No, it looked fantastic! The media salesmen gave fantastic presentations. There was only one slight problem, after a careful, detailed analysis, their presentations proved false. As all good salesmen do, they said and kept repeating what their potential clients wanted to hear: they would save millions and not have employees to contend with.

    There’s an old saying: if it’s too good to be true, it probably is. Those 10 words led to an exhaustive analysis conducted by court officials, court reporters employed by the court system, and documented information provided by the National Court Reporters Association in Washington, D.C.
    This analysis, verified by written proof, proved there were quite a few omissions and misrepresentations in the media salesmen’s presentations.

    Firstly, as we all know with working with computers in our everyday life, they malfunction. What do you do? Call your IT department. Computers work in conjunction with audio and video equipment. The more equipment that’s installed, the larger the IT department. You have to have well trained IT employees in both audio/video media and computers. The larger the court system, the more equipment that’s installed, the more staff to maintain it.

    A good IT employee earns approximately what a reporter does. An audio or audio/video setup per courtroom is very expensive as it involves extensive wiring and placement of multiple equipment both in the courtroom and the judge’s chambers, and that cost is multiplied by the number of courtrooms per county. Additionally, you are employing a large technical staff who,have to be housed on site as they have to be available immediately as trials can’t wait for a day until a repairman can come. You aren’t employing one or even 10 people if you have perhaps 30 or more courtrooms. You have many more. In addition to the IT department, you have to have staff in each courtroom to monitor equipment to track what is being recorded during a trial along with making sure the equipment is functioning. These are employees who have to be housed in facilities near the courtrooms.

    In addition to staff to monitor and maintain equipment, you have the equipment itself. It is expensive and as we all know with computers and cell phones, they are outdated the day we buy them and have to be upgraded or replaced on a consistent basis. In addition to that, there is the cost of their operation.

    There are many more details I could go into but the short answer of what the Pittsburgh state court system found after its long study: on cost alone, there were no savings and could potentially cost much more! This was never revisited as the circumstances of what all is involved never changes. If anything, with more advanced equipment, it only gets more complicated and expensive! There were approximately 45 courtrooms involved in this study.

    Then we go on to the most critical point that must be considered. If a recording fails and it’s not discovered, there would have to be a new trial granted at perhaps multiple thousands of dollars. If that happened in a capital case, a murderer could go free as there’s no accurate record for appeal. There is also the aspect of it being very difficult and time consuming to prepare a transcript from an audio recording as witnesses have heavy accents, people mumble, microphones are covered by accident, there’s a glitch in the equipment that’s not discovered and parts of the proceedings are missing. We go back to a new trial being granted. Judges have to rehear perhaps a three-week trail. That involves the salaries of court staff and all IT employees involved. Just on that one incident we are into tens of thousands of dollars.

    I would be glad to meet with anyone on your investigative board to go over any questions you may have. Thank you.

    Respectfully submitted
    Ursula H. Pappas

    Clark Edwards
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 11:59 PM
    Clark L. Edwards, RPR
    PO Box 411
    Holbrook AZ 86025
    [email protected]
    (801) 793-9805

    GUARDIANS OF THE RECORD. There are so many aspects to this role a shorthand reporter plays including ensuring parties to a proceeding speak in a manner that all participants may hear to some reasonable degree.

    That words are formed in the English language intelligibly.

    That speakers exercise at least a minimum level of decorum by each taking their turn to speak while all others listen.

    Requiring that distracting noises of all kinds are kept extremely low so as to not prevent apprehension and audible reception of each word delivered throughout the proceeding.

    Diplomatically requesting necessary breaks so that all may enjoy a period of rest and rejuvenation before continuing with the business to be conducted at hand.

    Inviting speakers to pace themselves in their delivery in order to be comprehensible with at least reasonable volume that all may fully participate.

    Assessing and determining the needs of transcript requests and the required needs of those ordering a transcript and delivering such timely.

    Reading back portions of the proceeding as requested to assist in smooth flow of thought and continuity of examinations.

    Delivering realtime translation as requested for instantaneous delivery of the spoken word.

    Accurate identification of speakers by name.

    And many more duties too numerous to mention here.

    These and many others are the solemn and vital responsibilities of the shorthand reporter, the GUARDIAN OF THE RECORD.
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:187 Basic Member

    --
    01 Jun 2020 07:40 AM
    David K. Byers, Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 West Washington St.
    Phoenix AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3966
    [email protected]

    Petitioner submits the attached Reply.
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:187 Basic Member

    --
    09 Jun 2020 10:14 AM
    David K. Byers, Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 West Washington St.
    Phoenix AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3966
    [email protected]

    Petitioner submits the attached Supplement to Reply.
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:187 Basic Member

    --
    27 Oct 2020 11:00 AM
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007-3327
    Phone: (602) 452-3966
    [email protected]

    Request to Defer Consideration of Petition Until August 2021 Rules Agenda.
    Attachments
    Marretta Mathes
    New Member
    Posts:6 New Member

    --
    03 Jun 2021 05:30 PM
    David K. Byers
    Administrative Director
    Administrative Office of the Courts
    1501 W. Washington, Suite 411
    Phoenix, AZ 85007-3327
    Phone: (602) 452-3301
    [email protected]

    Petitioner hereby files his Renewed Request to Amend Petition and Amended Petition.

    The petition is reopened for public comments, due on or before October 1, 2021.

    Reply is due on or before October 15, 2021.
    Attachments


    ---