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 8 of 10 << < 678910 > >>
Author Messages
Robin Lawlor
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
25 Oct 2021 04:44 PM
I OPPOSE the suggested amendments to the Rules of Procedure.

I am a court reporter for 30 years and am currently working in the Maricopa County Superior Court. I have witnessed firsthand the failure of the recording technology in various courtrooms, as have many other reporters.

These failures can present on a weekly basis, ranging from smaller issues to larger ones. Various disruptions in the court day cost time and money. It is often that we will see an IT technician enter the courtroom to "troubleshoot" the system, which ultimately results in more delays during a trial or proceeding. Have these costs been evaluated?

If the language is amended allowing a recording to become the official record, what happens when there is one minute of missing testimony or argument in any trial? Then there is no verbatim record. These aren't fabled occurrences, they are real. They have happened in other parts of the country in other jurisdictions. Have the costs of retrials been considered in this proposed amendment?

The whole exercise of re-branding the official verbatim court record feels a bit disingenuous. It may be true there are fewer court reporters than previously thought, but there are still many, many Certified Court Reporters working within our state; and maybe with the right support and fair incentivization, they would assist our outlying counties in making a court record.

Our system of justice depends on a word-for-word transcript of proceedings. Certified Court Reporters have an ethical duty to make this happen. We ask questions of witnesses; we seek clarifications of the mumbled word; we research terms and case law, all in an effort to make a true and accurate transcript for all parties involved. We are able to produce transcripts within expedited and rushed timelines, and we provide real-time to judges during trials to aid them in making immediate effective rulings.

All of these human elements, along with our writing skills and continuing education requisites, both locally and nationally, are what make our verbatim transcripts comprehensive and intelligible to those reading them.

Please continue to consider us the gold standard and oppose the proposed amendments.

Thank you.

Robin Lawlor, RMR, CRR, FCRR
[email protected]
Michaela H. Davis, RPR, CRR, CRC, CLR
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
25 Oct 2021 04:47 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.

Michaela Davis, RPR, CRR, CRC
[email protected]
Kate Roundy
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 12:30 AM
I am writing in STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed Rule R-20-20013, Petition to Amend Various Rules Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings.
The hasty emergency order filed by the Administrative Office of the Court is a major disservice to Arizona’s justice system. These changes go against their previous testimony to our Legislature in 2020.

Here are just a few issues to consider:

1. Electronic recordings of court proceedings are notorious for having technical issues. Here are a few examples:

a. System failure: The system is not turned on at all, or weeks, months, or years pass before it is discovered a portion did not record correctly.
b. Transcription inaccuracy: People do not identify themselves before they speak, so mistakes are made in transcription.
c. Lost content: Two or more people speak at once and neither is heard clearly. Background noise such as a pen clicking or an ambulance driving by overrides the audio recording and you cannot hear the spoken words.

2. Relying on electronic recording leads to grave issues with an accurate transcription of what transpired. Here are a couple issues to consider:

a. Who is transcribing the recordings? What happened to an Arizona Certified Court Reporter, bound by ethics and rules, being the “Guardian of the Record”? Who are we now relying on to be the “Guardian of the Record?” An hourly employee? An employee of a third-party transcription company working for the State? Are we not concerned about HIPPA or confidential testimony any longer?

b. Consider the importance of the “human element” when creating an accurate transcript. A Certified Court Reporter will obtain correct spellings. A Certified Court Reporter will ask for clarification when a witness is not speaking loud enough, mumbles, or when two people speak at once. A Certified Court Reporter will confirm terms and unfamiliar testimony when a witness is difficult to understand. When utilizing electronic recording, there will be many misspellings, many “indiscernible” notations, and many “inaudible“ notations throughout the transcript. Is an inaccurate and incomplete record acceptable now in death penalty cases, felony jury trials, and abortion without parental consent cases?

3. I encourage you to look into the legislative process that took place in passing SB 1267. 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 a huge disservice not only to the litigants but to our entire judicial system .

I OPPOSE the suggested rule changes. Such changes are a violation of a party’s right to an accurate, fair, and impartial judicial proceeding. These suggested changes affect a party’s life and liberty, effectively eliminating their ability to the best and most accurate record available; and potentially costing thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money to retry a matter due to digital recording failure.

I OPPOSE the suggested rule changes. Please vote AGAINST any change to the current rules.

Kate Roundy, RPR
Arizona Certified Court Reporter
17208 North 17th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85022
(602) 280-5983
[email protected]
Cindy McDevitt
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 01:10 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.

Cynthia McDevitt
110 W. Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701
520-724-8545
[email protected]
Marylynn LeMoine Cotton
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 03:39 PM
I am OPPOSED to this proposed rule change. I have been a court reporter for Maricopa County Superior Court for over 20 years. I have seen many changes and improvements over that time, but the one thing that has not changed is that a defendant needs a verbatim transcript for an appeal.
I am currently preparing a transcript for a 2006 case where an evidentiary hearing was necessary to ensure the defendant’s rights were not violated during the court proceedings. It was no surprise to me that the court reporter’s transcripts from 15 years ago played a vital role in this process. It was also no surprise to me that the attorneys’ records and paper files had long since been shredded and were forever gone. Court reporters are more than glorified clerical staff. They are historians and dutifully document a verbatim record for all parties. These transcripts may be referred to and relied on for decades.
I have heard about and personally witnessed far too many instances of a digital recording being inadequate or even non-existent even though big money was paid to install this high tech equipment. As a court reporter, I have been called very frequently to cover a courtroom where the electronic equipment wasn’t functioning properly or at all. It’s hard to believe that this is the alternative that is being promoted with all of its proven unreliability.
This rule change is now supposed to give the judge to have discretion to grant the request for a court reporter. This is NOT what SB 1267 provides nor what was argued to the legislature. It was argued to the legislature that court reporters will still be present for anyone that requests one timely if one is available. To now give a judge the discretion to not have a court reporter present even when there are court reporters on staff is in direct opposition to what is provided for in SB 1267. Most judges I have personally worked with over the past couple of decades prefer to have a certified reporter and realtime, which is something that a digital recording cannot provide.
It is a travesty of justice to deny any litigants access to having a court reporter present and the assurance of a complete record for appeal. I strongly oppose this proposed rule change.

Marylynn LeMoine Cotton
[email protected]
Carrie Cariati
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 03:56 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, such as participants coughing, shuffling papers, flipping through large binders,
walking away from the microphone, simultaneous speakers, unidentified voices, etc., do not allow for an accurate verbatim record. 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.

Carrie Cariati
[email protected]
christina
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 04:10 PM
I oppose the suggested rule changes. Trained, human court reporters are indispensable for our judicial system, especially for death penalty cases, felony jury trials, and abortion without parental consent cases. Digital recordings are simply unable to provide accurate or timely transcripts of the proceedings. Microphones do not pick up what the human ear does, and therefore the recordings are often inaudible unless they are positioned correctly every single time. I have been told that the current wait time for a transcriptionist to transcribe the recording is 6 months, whereas the court reporters who were present at the hearing can have the transcript ready much faster, such as 5 days. The court should continue to provide a certified court reporter. Please vote against this petition. Thank you.

Christina West
[email protected]
Nicole A. Bulldis, CR, RPR
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 06:24 PM
I am writing to oppose the suggested rule change. Certified Court Reporters have an ethical duty and a licensing body to answer to when it comes to taking down testimony and producing transcripts. These areas are instances where people's lives and liberty are at stake. To rely solely on electronic recording leading to transcripts riddled with [indiscernible] or [inaudible] leaves too many opportunities for error in an arena where every single word matters when it comes to making important decisions.

Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

N. Bulldis, RPR, AZ 50955
Phoenix, AZ
[email protected]
Debra Carney
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 06:36 PM
I oppose the suggested rule changes. 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.

Thank you,
Debra Carney
Certified Court Reporter
[email protected]
Lkuhnhenn
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
26 Oct 2021 11:44 PM
I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. 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.

Lauren Kuhnhenn, CR, RPR
[email protected]
Sharon
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
27 Oct 2021 04:18 AM
• 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.
I have personally observed the recording system go down and nobody knows about it until hearing is over. Until someone transcribes the recordings - hopefully a court reporter who is familiar and understands what the proceedings are all about with their many years of training and experience -- they don't know if someone sneezed or coughed or a door closed loudly totally blocking out what was said, even when you single out the microphones. Some transcription services are saying they can transcribe the recordings using artificial intelligence with a 95% transcription rate. I don't think is anywhere near the realm of fair justice in our system of law. There are many, many accents that the court reporter must understand and is able to ask for clarification whereas a recording just is what it is. I OPPOSE THIS STRONGLY. PLEASE KEEP our Judicial system fair and just!
Thank you,
Sharon Bradley, Sharon Bradley - Registered Merit Reporter – Certified RealTime Reporter – Arizona Certified Reporter No. 50040 – California CSR No. 4003 – Nevada CR No. 101 – Utah CCR No. 8015306431
2126 McCulloch Blvd., Suite 10
Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403
928.855.1366
[email protected]


Mary E. Pierce
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
27 Oct 2021 07:19 PM
I am in opposition to the suggested rule change. Death penalty cases, felony jury trials, and abortion without parental consent are too important to compromise their outcome by relying on the inherent inefficiencies of electronic recording. Certified Shorthand Reporters are highly skilled professionals who have legal and ethical responsibilities when engaged in both the taking of testimony and the production of it in transcript form. When anyone's life or liberty is at stake, it seems reckless to risk the record to equipment failure, a lost or damaged audio file, let alone the inferior transcription process from which a typical audio recording transcript is produced. A transcriptionist, whether located in this country or elsewhere, has little to no training when compared to a licensed court reporter, and is bound by no legal requirements and subject to no regulatory review. A decision to use such a process in such serious court cases would be to risk having a record that may not stand up to scrutiny down the road and could prove catastrophic to the proper administration of justice for people at a critical moment in their lives. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Mary E. Pierce, CA CSR 6143
10042 Cutty Sark Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
(714) 964-6200
(714) 501-9490
[email protected]
Tessa Baumgarth
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
27 Oct 2021 09:25 PM
I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed Rule R-20-20013, Petition to Amend Various Rules Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings.
The hasty emergency order filed by the Administrative Office of the Court is harmful to Arizona’s justice system. These changes go against their previous testimony to our Legislature in 2020.
Please examine the discrepancies in their testimony and what they are now proposing.
These changes will be extremely harmful to Arizona’s judicial system. Please vote AGAINST any change in the current rules.
Thank you.
Maricopa County Registered Voter
Tessa Baumgarth
22125 North 29th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
602-820-4273
[email protected]
Robin Nodland
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
27 Oct 2021 09:45 PM
I am writing 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. Criminal cases involve people's lives and their safety. Accused defendants' liberty is at stake. To rely on an electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. The right of appeal is based on the record. It is simply too important to take this risk.

Oregon placed electronic recording in all state courts years ago, and the onslaught of errors has been disastrous. A Certified Court Reporter would never put "(inaudible)" in a transcript, yet somehow it as acceptable for a transcriber to do for a transcription of an electronic recording. When an attorney or party shuffles papers near a microphone, all audio is obliterated. When a bus goes by the courthouse, audio is affected. Slamming a door down the hall, same thing. I have heard stories of counsel tapping the leg of their table with a pencil to harm the electronic audio recording.

When court staff are overworked and miss testing the electronic recording process before a trial, things happen. A court clerk in Oregon told me her system recorded the wrong courtroom for a week. When that happens, they hold their breath and hope the litigants do not discover this malfunction. We have story after story of these errors. Journalist Steve Duin wrote a comprehensive article about an abysmal miscarriage of justice because of errors and mishaps with electronic recording in a murder trial. You can find that story here: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/2011/04/bring_back_the_court_reporters.html

We heard about a defendant arrested for rape of a child who was released because the electronic recording was faulty. We heard of a weeklong trial in an environmental case that had to be retried because of recording failure. We hear scuttlebutt, and we hear that court staff are instructed not to talk about these things.

In Oregon, wealthy litigants now hire a freelance Certified Court Reporter to guard the record, and poor litigants are stuck with the faulty electronic recording. When the very rights of citizens depend on the transcript for their right to appeal, a faulty record is abhorrent and risks lawsuits against the State for this risky practice. I urge you to reject this cost-shifting, which it truly is -- don't pay for a court reporter today, but pay for retrials and lawsuits from affected litigants later.

Robin Nodland, CSR, CCR, RDR, CRR, FAPR
503-299-6200
[email protected]
Kim Rupiper
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
28 Oct 2021 11:41 AM
I am in opposition of the suggested rule changes. 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. 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. Some transcription services are saying they can transcribe the recordings using artificial intelligence with a 95% transcription rate. I don't think this is anywhere near the realm of fair justice in our system of law. There are many, many accents that the court reporter must understand and is able to ask for clarification whereas a recording just is what it is electronic recording leaves too many opportunities for error. Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Kim Rupiper
[email protected]
Jessica W
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
28 Oct 2021 12:08 PM
I am in OPPOSITION to the suggested rule changes. Court reporters have an ethical obligation to take the record down and to risk people's lives, liberties, freedoms on an electronic recording is beyond comprehension. I don't understand why anyone would want to take a chance like this when it comes to such important issues. Court reporters are highly trained, qualified individuals that have a duty to protect the record. Anything less is just simply not acceptable. I've been reporting for a few years and have already encountered several instances where the FTR or audio recording failed to do its job. Thank goodness I was there or where would the litigants be? I strongly oppose this rule change like I said, so please do not pass this.

Jessica Wasdyke
[email protected]
Robin O
New Member
Posts:2 New Member

--
28 Oct 2021 01:44 PM

I have been a court reporter for nearly 35 years, and I am in STRONG OPPOSITION to the proposed rule change.

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.

Robin L. B. Osterode, CSR (CA), CR (AZ), RPR
[email protected]
Joseph
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
28 Oct 2021 02:05 PM
I oppose the suggested changes. I have witnessed too many instances of court reporters being valuable contributors to an fair and accurate judicial process. The suggested changes raise many concerns that are easily avoided by simply using court reporters. There are several instances where rule changes are necessary, however, this is not one of them. I would not feel comfortable potentially jeopardizing people's lives, liberties and various freedoms by enacting this change.

Joseph C. Finch
928-524-4080
Show Low, AZ
[email protected]
M Morrisette
New Member
Posts:1 New Member

--
30 Oct 2021 02:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I OPPOSE the adoption of this amendment to the Rules of Procedure. I have been an official reporter for over 26 years and a certified court reporter for over 30 years. The official court record is a direct representation of the proceedings and when it is not an accurate record, it can change how it is perceived by the reader, thus putting at jeopardy true justice for all parties seeking relief from the courts. Court reporters are gatekeepers of the record and have been trained and certified through state testing to ensure their proficiency. There is also a court reporter board that upholds their integrity, proficiency, and standards. When people's liberties and lives are at stake, it becomes critical and necessary to have an accurate representation of those proceedings when making a decision and relying on the official record. When the official record is flawed, it could negatively impact that decision. Putting the official record in the hands of just anybody transcribing the record, there are no standards, no integrity restraints, leaving open a flawed record for anyone seeking relief and justice in the court of law.

I respectfully request that you REJECT this petition to amend the rules and keep the high standards of accountability and reliability that a certified reporter offers when delivering an official record.

Sincerely,

M. Morrisette AZ CCR#50334, CA CSR#7342
623-848-2164
Glendale, Az
[email protected]
Rosina Seymour
New Member
Posts: New Member

--
30 Oct 2021 05:08 PM
I STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed Rule R-20 -20013. Please vote AGAINST any change to the current rules.
The record is too important to the justice system. It will be extremely detrimental to deny litigants’ access to having a court reporter present and the assurance of a complete record for appeal.
As a court reporter, I have had instances where I have been asked to transcribe a recorded court proceeding, and it is difficult to understand the speaker or even identify which person is speaking. Court reporters provide a word-for-word, accurate transcription of the proceeding. We can ask for clarification when necessary due to soft-spoken witnesses, difficult accents, people who mumble, people talking over each other, and the like. We speak up when these situations arise.

I also have grave concerns on who will be transcribing the recordings. Arizona Certified Court Reporters are bound by ethics and rules set out by the Arizona Supreme Court. We answer to them. Who is responsible if the record is incorrect or lost? We go through extensive training to make sure we prepare accurate transcripts. Who are we now relying on to be the “Guardian of the Record,” an hourly employee or an employee of a third-party transcription company? I have rewound and gone over and over a recording to try and get it as accurate as possible. Why? It’s my work product. Will others, who aren’t certified, care as much?

As stated in many of the comments opposing this rule change, there are too many instances where electronic recordings are unreliable. I STRONGLY OPPOSE the suggested rule changes. The best and most accurate record available for our judicial system is a live court reporter.

Respectfully submitted,

Rosina Seymour, RPR
Certified Reporter No. 50212
[email protected]
Topic is locked
Page 8 of 10 << < 678910 > >>