FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].



Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas
 

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

Proposed Local Rules

                

 

Welcome!

 

This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of your contact information when submitting a rule petition or comment.  Otherwise, your submission may be rejected and we will be unable to advise you as to why. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 15 Nov 2021 07:03 PM by  Marretta Mathes
R-20-0013 Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings
 180 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 6 of 10 << < 45678 > >>
Author Messages
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:29 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:225 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:225 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:225 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:40 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
KarenKahle
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
08 Oct 2021 12:29 PM
I oppose this proposition once again. I can tell you that there are many flaws with the recording system in Pima County. Microphones forget to be turned on. There are some audio recordings where you can't even hear a single person. I have attorneys requesting audio from many of the family law court hearings, and the audio is horrible! One attorney said he was going to have to ask for a redo of a hearing because the audio was impossible to hear. Is this your idea of a good record? I have emails from judges requesting a court reporter because FTR is not working. I said this before, and I'll say it again: There is no court reporter shortage! The shortage comes from our licensing board in getting court reporters certified here in Arizona. This proposal failed before, so I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. We court reporters are the Guardians of the Record, and we will keep fighting to preserve the record.

Karen Kahle
520-724-3015
[email protected]
ChristopherDay227
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
12 Oct 2021 09:09 AM
Christopher Day
423 Guyon Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10306
917 685 3010
[email protected]
OPPOSITION. My name is Christopher Day. I am a court reporter in New York and creator of the Stenonymous blog. I have recently released a video explaining some very nasty things going on in my field. There has been a push by several companies, big national names in our field, such as Veritext and US Legal Support, to build digital court reporting as opposed to stenographic court reporting. Summarily, these companies are telling the legal profession no stenographers are available, but they are generally not making good faith efforts to recruit stenographers. We know that because they have failed to attempt to recruit stenographers from Sourcebook/PRO Link, a national directory of stenographers. Their push towards digital recording is not one of genuine need, but one of agenda. In fact, the chief strategy officer of US Legal, Peter Giammanco, wrote in an email regarding adopting digital reporting versus stenographic reporting, “does it matter if done legally and ethically…?” The legal profession is, without a doubt, being bamboozled, and courts with it. Because images are not allowed, I will link the article containing the image of that email. It is my contention that the court should be very aware that very large and powerful players in our industry could be acting with an intent to deceive. Similarly, there are nonprofits in our field, such as the Speech to Text Institute, which claim to be for all modalities of taking the record, but are a thinly-veiled attempt to give legitimacy to digital reporting, which is, as I will explain, wholly inadequate.

Digital court reporting is often painted as modernization, as this current change proposes. “Modernize the law.” But, in fact, all available data points to digital reporting being an inferior modality to stenographic court reporting. There are studies such as Testifying While Black (2019, pilots 1 and 2), and Racial Disparities In Automatic Speech Recognition (2020) which show that stenographic court reporting can be over three times as accurate as digital reporting with the African American Vernacular English dialect dependent on whether one is using record and transcribe method or automatic speech recognition. One has to wonder what the results might be if similar studies were done on other dialects and accents and how the justice system will be automatically discriminating against minority speakers by adopting digital recording.

Our efficiency lies in the way our system works. Our stenotypes are chorded. When we press on the keys we can take down a word in one or two hand movements. Sometimes an entire statement in one hand movement. The average word being about five characters, the average person needs at least five hand movements and the space bar. Simple math tells us that either 6x the number of transcribers will be needed to fill each court reporter’s seat, or 6x the amount of time will be needed to transcribe. Courts that have moved towards digital recording in the past, such as Massachusetts and New Jersey, have started to recruit stenographers again because they learned what my colleagues and I already know, that they were sold a lie.

Not only that, digital reporting proponents, such as Verbit, have shown an utter disregard for the quality and care standards of the court reporting industry. I recently exposed that they had posted Kentucky family court proceeding audio from Kentucky on the internet, as well as a template transcription that they offered. Thanks to my investigation, the audio was taken down. Because images are not allowed, I will link an article explaining the situation and with an image of the transcription template. The errors are horrifying, numerous, and egregious. Some of the least dangerous ones? “Point” is spelled with a zero (p0int) and “virtually” is spelled with an SH (virshually).

There has also been some evidence that digital reporting companies are dishonest. I recently raised $5,000 for a consumer awareness campaign and one woman claiming to be a digital reporter stated they were not paid enough to care [about the transcript] and trained to obfuscate, presumably by typing tag or guide files during the proceeding. This is not a direction which the courts should allow legal records to go under any circumstance.

Beyond that, there is reason to believe that digital reporting companies are operating beyond their means. I must point to VIQ Solutions, a company which last quarter lost over $10 million despite its $8 million in revenue. It is possible that companies operating in the digital reporting sphere are zombie corporations. Therefore, should they succeed in pushing stenographic competition out of the market, the costs of transcription and digital recording will rise dramatically. And we know from a study done by Justice Served on the Californian and Floridian courts that digital recording and stenographic reporting costs were already close. (https://www.cal-ccra.org/.../Justice_Served-CCRA_Dec09.pdf)

It is also notable that our stenographer shortage is used as a justification to do away with us. But transcribers are experiencing a similar shortage because they are poorly paid. The situation is so dire that the Association for Healthcare Documentation Integrity noted in its FAQ as recently as 9/24/21 that the shortage of medical transcribers was being compensated for through automatic speech recognition. This means that the transcription will almost certainly be offshored outside the subpoena power of the courts. This is not theoretical. Digital reporting companies have already employed or contracted transcribers from India, the Philippines, and Kenya, and if asked, I would gladly provide evidence collected of that. Again, with this rampant dishonesty perpetrated by digital reporting company owners, do we really want a world where the person that prepares the legal record cannot be brought in to testify if there's a question or issue?

In the sake of brevity, I will largely skip comments about the audio failing to record or being unclear. But reliance on electronic recording would create a storage issue. Our raw stenographic text files are many times smaller than audio files. Take whatever the court pays for computerized storage of steno notes and multiply that by eight. If the court currently pays nothing and the responsibility of retention is on the court reporter, then imagine how those costs will now be shifted directly to the court.

And finally, this move creates the illusion that the stenographic court reporter is no longer in demand. Instead of broadcasting the need for the reporter, it will be assumed that the reporter is replaced, and make it even harder for my field to recruit via NCRA A to Z, Project Steno, Open Steno, and other initiatives. I have to ask this court not to contribute to the death of my profession. We have served yours for so many decades and spend so much time and energy training young people to take our place. They need confirmation that their hard work and training will provide for them. A rejection of these changes will serve as a broadcast to entrepreneurs across your state: Keep our courts efficient, build steno schools and businesses.

Though I am not from Arizona and though many of the things I point to occurred outside of Arizona, I must ask Arizona to take its blinders off and consider the mountain of evidence that points to recording being an inferior modality for taking down the legal record. The continuing education and ethics first culture of stenography and the National Court Reporters Association is simply unmatched. It is mimicked by digital reporting agencies and organizations so that they might have some of our $3 billion industry. The harm to minority speakers and the potential for runaway costs related to digital recording is too great to ignore. Keep stenographers on as guardians of the record and commit to the training of many more stenographers; the civil and criminal justice systems will only benefit. Your procedural rules, in their current form, defend the integrity of the record far more than the proposed amendments will. Thank you.

(https://stenonymous.com/.../us-legal-rep-does-it-really.../)

(https://stenonymous.com/.../verbit-published-kentuckiana.../)

(https://youtu.be/4RrFIyocj4A)



Rachel Helm
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
12 Oct 2021 02:56 PM
I am in opposition to this rule change. In addition to the many salient objections listed by those before me, I will add that such a rule will affect court procedures for the United States at large. A precedent to use digital recorders over verbatim stenographic reporters will have far-reaching, dangerous consequences to justice for all Americans, not just those in Arizona.

Certified stenographic court reporters remain the greatest tool for creating an accurate verbatim record of proceedings, which is essential to the delivery of justice.

I urge you not to implement this rule.

Rachel Helm
RSR, WA CCR
[email protected]
PO Box 2181
Poulsbo, WA 98370
509-339-0275
Theresa Salsberry
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
12 Oct 2021 03:57 PM
I’m an in opposition to this. Court reporters are an essential part of the verbatim court record. Defendants have a right for accurate court proceedings and due process. Court reporters are vital in creating the verbatim record.

Thank you.
Theresa Salsberry
Certified Court Reporter
[email protected]
401 East Spring Street
Kingman, AZ 86401
LisaNance
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
12 Oct 2021 06:01 PM
I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. Death penalty cases, felony jury trials, and abortion
without parental consent cases are just too important to risk to the inherent inefficiencies of electronic
recording because life and liberty are inextricably dependent on a clear and accurate record. Please vote
against any changes to the current rules.
• Certified 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 in 2019 was a rushed process and the resulting Final Report, where some of
these suggested rule changes came from, are not in the public interest and are outdated based on newer
information and standard practice. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
• The legislative process in passing SB 1267 is undermined and the proposed rules do not follow the
Administrative Office of the Court’s own verbatim testimony during the legislative process of the
reasoning and intent of SB 1267. The Administrative Office of the Court is attempting to create not a huge
disservice to the litigants but to our judicial system. Please vote against any change to the current rules.
Lisa A. Nance
4232 West McLellan Blvd
Phoenix, Arizona 85019
623 203-7525
[email protected]
K. Wunsch
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
13 Oct 2021 11:33 AM
I oppose this amendment. Please protect the written record as it is vital to a fair and effective judicial system.

Kristen L. Wunsch, RPR
Certified Reporter No. 50719

[email protected]
602-615-0968
Topic is locked
Page 6 of 10 << < 45678 > >>