I am in opposition to approval by the Supreme Court of the emergency rules that were put into place without explanation.
It is difficult to comment on the emergency nature of these rules as the AOC has not publicly defined what the emergency is, and it’s hard not to feel like this is an end-run around the process that the Arizona Court Reporters Association (ACRA) has been participating in with the AOC regarding these rule changes that have been pending and going through the required process for quite some time now prior to this “emergency” being declared.

ACRA has been participating in good faith to offer solutions to concerns about court reporter availability, especially in the outlying rural courts, but their offered solutions seem to have fallen on deaf ears. ACRA created a protocol for rural courts to request coverage that connected ACRA’s freelance members to courts requiring their services, and all requests to date were successfully filled in this manner. Job sharing with officials from other counties has also been a suggested solution.

There is already a hybrid of methods used to make the record, but under no circumstances should a capital murder case or a felony trial be only electronically recorded. No method exists that can truly replace the human being there in the courtroom making the record.
Capital cases are automatically appealed and can result in thousands of pages of transcript. Transcribing after the fact is extraordinarily time-consuming and will not result in the best record no matter how good the transcriptionists are. It’s just the nature of the beast.

The best and most qualified transcriptionist is at a huge disadvantage when transcribing an audio file. If you have never tried to “type up” an audio recording, you cannot understand how difficult it really is. I would encourage the decision-makers to pull an audio file from a court proceeding and try to type what they hear while also typing in and identifying the speakers. Oh, and make sure that all the names are spelled correctly, too.

In regards to the language about freelance court reporters who are hired privately by attorneys when the court is unable to provide a court reporter having to transcribe all of their notes and file transcripts with the court within 30 days of the conclusion of the proceeding, at no cost to the court, obviously the attorney/client will have to pay for the court reporter to transcribe the proceedings, and this will result in unnecessary work and expense.

This seems like a further impediment to having a court reporter as not all litigants, criminal and civil, can bear this cost. There should be other protocols available that the court could institute when a freelancer covers court, i.e. filing of their stenographic notes and related files, if necessary in the future if the reporter is not available or cannot be found. If the court feels this language is truly necessary, then it should be at least 45 days and not 30 from the conclusion of the proceeding that the transcripts need to be filed with the court. The criminal appeal filing deadline is 45 days, and that should be sufficient for civil matters under these circumstances since civil matters may not even be appealed and the only reason it is being transcribed is because of this rule of the court.

The Courts obviously want to have control over the record and how it is made, but I feel that you are overlooking the experts, your official court reporters, that have been in the trenches and making sure the record is made and everyone gets their transcripts, without understanding what your court reporters do and the lengths they have to go to in order to do their job.

New technologies are emerging, but all of them require human monitoring or interaction to make sure the spoken word has been understood and transcribed correctly, and electronic recording only with no monitor is the least effective and least accurate way of making the record. And if automatic speech recognition (ASR) is used to make the first pass, a human being will still have to listen and read and fix and fill in what the ASR did not get right, and that will also be a time-consuming and tedious process that will still result in a less accurate record.

Official court reporters have been continuously told by the court that “We are not trying to replace or get rid of you, we just need flexibility.” Well, that doesn’t appear to really be the case as court administrators in large counties and small ones do not plan to replace their court reporters as they retire or leave. “We’re not going to fire you, but we’re not going to replace you either.”

I respectfully ask that the Supreme Court not adopt these emergency rules in December and investigate further the options that are available for the high priority cases that are affected by this rule change to ensure that all Arizonans are being best served by our justice system. No one wants to hear in the news that a criminal “got off on a technicality” because the record of their trial was insufficient on appeal and/or that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for a retrial.

Michele E. Balmer, RPR, AZ Certified Reporter, CA CSR
ACRA Past President
Yuma, Arizona
[email protected]
928.782.7591

I have been a reporter for over 40 years. During that time, I have been constantly told that we will be replaced. Time and time again, we continue to be the gold standard. We update our equipment on a continuous basis. We are there to seek and ask for clarification. With an electronic recording, now and as before, it cannot pick up every utterance and lacks the human element to understand and comprehend the complex terminology involved, acronyms used, and speaker identification. The few times that I have taken and transcribed from an electronic recording it has been frustrating at best. Even with the best possible electronic recording equipment, documents are shuffled over microphones, muffling sounds. There are gaps in the recording. It is impossible to discern the individual speakers. Not only that, the recordings are given to, in most cases, non-reporters that were not present at the proceedings and are at a distinct disadvantage trying to transcribe the record. Of course, someone else can transcribe from an audio recording. But I ask you, if you are involved in a trial situation, isn't it imperative that your testimony be taken down accurately? I know it would be for me or anyone I know. The fact of the matter is that we are highly skilled and trained in our profession. We take absolute pride in what we do. We have a vested interest in producing a high quality transcript. I highly doubt that you can say the same for a transcriber. I vehemently oppose R-20-0013.

Sheryl L. Henke, CR, RPR
[email protected]

I am submitting public comment in opposition to Rule 20-0013.

Having been a proud court reporter for 21 years in the state of Arizona, working in both the courthouse and freelance/deposition world, I can tell you with a 100 percent certainty that the amount of education, training, testing, continuing education, and licensing requirements that certified reporters obtain far surpasses and exceeds any transcriptionist anywhere. Certified reporters are governed under ethical requirements to maintain the integrity and confidential aspects of the legal system. The Arizona’s Court Reporters Board further oversees and provides the public with recourse if there is a possibility that a certified reporter may have feel below and/or violated the required standards; and, in turn, provides an opportunity for the certified reporter to address and defend the allegations. (ACJA 7-206)

Under the proposed rule change it states that someone who transcribes the digital audio recordings as an authorized transcriber only be “an individual or transcription service under contract with an Arizona court; or an individual employed by the court…”, leaving off a certified reporter. This language potentially opens it up for Joe Blow off the street or an employee of an attorney’s office to be able prepare a transcript which would then become the certified transcript. What if there are multiple transcripts prepared by multiple transcriptionists? How will it be determined which transcript is the official record? The man hours for the court and the parties to bill their respective parties for the hours and hours of them relistening to audio recorded hearings and comparing them to the “official record” could be astronomical.

Further, a transcriptionist cannot be held accountable for their work product as there is no governing body that oversees and/or provides regulatory language governing transcriptionists. As such, there is no recourse to the public for an inferior product, much less a requirement that transcriptionists adhere to any ethical guidelines or HIPAA requirements.

Transcription companies routinely send transcription jobs to overseas “transcribers” who have no formal education or training on legal terminology, transcription guidelines, etc. Does this violate HIPAA requirements? Is there a breach of confidentiality if these hearings are sent over an unsecure line through a cloud-based company to a foreign country to then sit on multiple people’s desk being paid a low wage and only concentrating on production time?

When the person transcribing a hearing does not have any individual consequence or penalty to the work product or their actions, the consequence under this proposed rule – and even right now as this was done as an emergency order – is someone’s life. A defendant being stuck in jail because the record cannot substantiate their claims on appeal; a defendant being released from jail due to a recording failure or incomplete transcript; a victim having to re-live and re-testify the crime perpetrated upon them because of faulty recording equipment or “inaudibles” and “indicernibles” permeating the “official” transcript. All of this results in the taxpayers having to pay for further hearings, retrials, and even lawsuits for miscarriages of justice.

Certified reporters spend hours sometimes looking up proper names, case citations and terminology. The certified reporter is able to ask for spellings of proper names and case citations during break and after the hearing to further ensure an accurate transcript.

One example of the lack of transcriptionists failing to understand and be familiar with legal terminology, is in one transcript I recently saw that instead of transcribing “habeas corpus,” it was in the transcript as “baby porpoise.” One day I would actually like to see a baby porpoise in the courtroom, it would make for a very interesting day!

Certified reporters can also provide real-time services to judges, litigants, and the general public, which is not only routinely requested, but some judges require it in their courtroom. Instantaneous transcription CANNOT be done by a recording.

A recording is just that, a recording; it does not differentiate who the speaker is, what it is recording, or the ability to determine that the spoken word should be what is recorded and not someone coughing or rustling papers obliterating the spoken word at that location; thus, resulting in “inaudible” and “indiscernible” throughout the “official” transcript. A certified reporter would NEVER put “inaudible” or “indiscernible” in a transcript. An actual human being would know and has the ability to ask the party to repeat themselves.

I would also like to state that I was one of the certified reporters who has been involved in both the recent House Bill and the Senate Bill, plus was amid good-faith negotiations on new verbiage to amend Rule 30 to reflect SB1267. In the middle of our negotiations, the Emergency Order and proposed amendment to Rule 30, R-20-0013 was enacted with brand-new language we had never seen and there was no notice given that this was being considered, which was a gut-punch to all certified reporters in Arizona and blindsided those that were involved in the back-and-forth negotiations. I am very disheartened that this has happened, especially after the hard work and compromise that was put into the Senate Bill.

Below are some of our proposed language changes that I would like to reurge you to consider.

• In the absence of a court-employed certified reporter, a party may provide notice of the intent to provide a certified reporter, in which case, that party’s certified reporter’s record is the official record. If more than one party provides notice of intent to provide a certified reporter, the parties may stipulate to which reporter’s record is the official record prior to the commencement of the hearing and/or trial. Absent an agreement, the court will designate which certified reporter’s record will be the official record prior to the hearing and/or trial commencing
• The certified reporter provided by a party must be an Arizona certified reporter pursuant to Title 32, Chapter 40, and in good standing with the Arizona Board of Certified Reporters. The certified reporter’s name, address, and license number must be provided to the court and all parties prior to the commencing of the hearing and/or trial.
• For a proceeding that is recorded by electronic recording equipment only, the official record is the transcript prepared by an individual set forth in sections 30(a)(2)

For all these reasons and many more, I respectfully request you vote against R-20-0013 and not

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

ACRA R-20-0013 Opposition Comments and attachment with exhibits.

See attached.


Angela F. Miller, President
Arizona Court Reporters Association
5350 W. Bell Rd., Suite C-122 #520
Glendale, AZ 85308
P: 602-679-6995
[email protected]

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.

Sandra Munter
[email protected]

I am Opposed to the proposed rule change. Why does this even come up? The Keeping the Record Committee in 2005 was thorough in their assessments and findings. The electronic industry touting they have better equipment is not a reason to change anything. We all know the deficiencies that come with recording. I have been a reporter for 35 years and have many examples of situations that never should have happened but did due to recording issues. Recently my Judge did a 5 day trial in Apache County as a visiting Judge to help them out, and they choose not to get a reporter and recorded it. It ended in a mistrial on the 5th day due to the inability of the Court and counsel to agree on what had been stated in the trial and were unable to locate it without having the entire trial transcribed which would take months.

The information that was provided by the SKREM Task Force in 2019 is not accurate in many respects and court reporters have stepped up and helped with the outlying counties when in need of coverage. There are only 3 counties without a staff reporter and they should be required to get a reporter there for their felony trials, death penalty trials. Transcript delays will become commonplace if left to just anyone to transcribe. How can it be called a certified record when it's transcribed by who knows or what (AFI)? Court reporters are licensed by a licensing board and governed by a board on ethics and their verbatim record and production of such. Now it's being suggested to turn that all over to recordings and whoever wants to type up a transcript? It is not logical. I have served as a transcriptionist for our Courts on some of the taped hearings and I have never had a hearing that doesn't have inaudibles in it. This should not be acceptable in felony trials, death penalty cases, abortion cases. Judges and attorneys I have worked with always want a reporter available.
We have 1 courtroom in our courthouse that has terrible acoustics and every recording out of there is totally inadequate and cannot be called a verbatim record. Verbatim means word-for-word.

The integrity of the record should be foremost. Why subject the judicial system to skepticism on the accuracy and integrity of the record? This is truly not in the best interest of the judicial system as a whole. Litigants, attorneys, and Judges should not have to listen to a recording or read a transcript littered with inaudible/indiscernible and believe they have the gist of what happened to be able to perform at the level that is required for fairness and justice in our system.

Please vote against any changes to the current rules.

Thank you,
Kelly Palmer
RPR, AZ#50298
[email protected]

I OPPOSE the Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings.

I have been a reporter for 37 years, 35 of those years in Arizona; 12 of those years I was directly employed by Maricopa County Superior Court. I have had regular requests to transcribe both judicial proceedings and regulatory proceedings. I have encountered the same difficulties expressed in prior comments by my colleagues, so I will not repeat them.

I have reviewed the petitioner’s May 29 Reply to the comments. The petitioner observed that technology has advanced in the 15 years since the Keeping the Record recommendations; I won’t argue. The petitioner states that multi-channeled recording systems have or will resolve muffled voices, people speaking over each other and extraneous noises and states on page 5, “Many of the technological constraints that were problematic decades ago have been resolved and should no longer be considered areas of concern.” I do not agree. Transcription problems with current technology still exist for the precise reason that recording equipment does not discriminate. I have transcribed FTR four-channeled video recordings. I have been able to turn up the volume on an independent channel and better hear a witness. However, if that same track has recorded loud paper shuffling with the muffled voice, turning up the volume does not separate the muffled voice from the recorded paper shuffle.

The petitioner goes on to state all of the things the court will do to ensure the quality of the recording, such things as backup recordings, monitors, best practice policies and the like. I feel that until these things are in place, the amendment to the rule is premature.

The petitioner states that cost savings were not a consideration when implementing electronic recording, but hastens to add that the court has “expressed concerns about the high costs when a court reporter is not available in the county,” coupled with harm to in-custody defendants who are suffering delays due to court reporter unavailability. If we're using this reason to put in ER, would the court consider a certified reporter appearing by remote means for hearings?

Comments related to the wording of the paragraphs:

Rule 30(b) is entitled “Use of Court Reporting Services.” I would suggest “(b) Use of Certified Reporters” or “Use of Certified Reporter Resources” for consistency with the rest of the paragraphs.

Rule 30(b)(3)(d): Why is the reporter requested to transcribe their notes at no cost to the court within 30 days of the conclusion of the proceeding? I worked in court for 12 years and I never had to provide a free transcript to the court. I did provide real-time for the court at no cost, but I did not have to furnish a completed ready-for-appeal transcript. If the court is looking for its usual and customary copy that it is provided on appeal or during trial, then I would suggest this language: “Upon a request and at the expense of the requesting party, the certified reporter must provide a copy of the transcript to the party and shall file the original with the court.”

Rule 30(b)(3)(b), the words “In designating the official record…” bring to mind the designation of record notice that the clerk supplies when preparing a transcript on appeal. Does the petitioner mean “In designating the certified reporter” here?

Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments.

Melissa Gonsalves, RMR, CRR
2700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 350
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 230-8448
[email protected]

I oppose the suggested rule changes and humbly request the Supreme Court of Arizona in their consideration and review of the emergency order and the associated rule petition examine both the potential impact of its implementation as well as the reasons behind what the administration of Maricopa County Superior Court intends to achieve with these amended rules. The administration seeking this amendment argues that 1) the technology of electronic recording has achieved a point that the need for a court reporter is antiquated, 2) the cost is burdensome, and 3) the operations and process decisions made in general jurisdiction courts should not be subject to the needs and direction from the appellate jurisdiction.

In arguing that the current technology of electronic recording is a benefit that meets or exceeds the current standard set by a court reporter, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the electronic recording has redundancies in the event of power failure, malfunction, or human error. There have been more than several instances where the recording was failed to be started by the operator. There are not even observed flags to indicate the equipment is operating as intended or when needed. The court reporter maintains professional standards, continuing education credits, technical support and technological improvements that integrate with available technology, the cost and time of which is borne as a personal cost by the reporter and not financed by their employers. The court reporter is THE STANDARD and the electronic recording has failed to reach that high bar.

Any argument that the cost of electronic recording is fiscally prudent fails to be supported by a cost benefit analysis. The administration states that the installation of the equipment is a one-time expense with limited maintenance support contract. The facts are in order to replace the reporter, the court would also need an operator for the equipment (presumably the bailiff) who has limited and non-formal/standard training, and personnel with the requisite knowledge capable of providing on-site technical support. Additionally, the court reporter normally develops the requested transcripts during non-working hours. Transcribers will also be required to be hired fill this role. Even if the petitioner could assume a minor annual cost savings, which is in dispute, the breakeven cost could be decades away.

The appellate jurisdiction depends on a reliable transcription in order to examine the arguments of parties before it. If the transcript is missing or filled with omitted testimony on account of subpar transcriptions due to absent standards among non-certified transcribers, this will create an undue burden which will require additional time, effort, and expense to the appellate and general jurisdictions as well as the parties before them including a higher potential for retrial. The petitioner should show to the appellate jurisdiction that current methods will even meet the needs of the court and the community. This should be supported and peer reviewed by members of the appellate and general jurisdictions, the state bar, the administration, and court reporting community.

Make the petitioner show that they have the best interest of the court in mind, technically, financially, legally, and morally. Revoke the emergency order and deny the petitioner’s request.

Chris Bradley
14619 W. Pasadena Ave.
Litchfield Park, AZ 85340
(602)686-6651
[email protected]

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.

Sincerely,
Jerry Coash, Jr.
President
Coash & Coash, Inc.
AZ Registered Reporting Firm #R1036
602-258-1440
[email protected]

I OPPOSE the suggested rule changes and request that you vote AGAINST any change to the current rules.

This "emergency" order filed by the Administrative Office of the Court is in direct contradiction to the AOC's previous testimony to the legislature in 2020 and the rules do not follow the AOC's own verbatim testimony during the legislative process as far as the reasoning and intent of SB1267. This petition does not include the language agreed to by David Byers with the Arizona Court Reporter Coalition. As agreed to previously, court reporters were to be present for any party making a timely request for one. This proposed rule change will give judges the discretion to grant or deny such a request and instead use the digital recording system, even when there are court reporters on staff and available. This is not what was argued to the legislature and is in direct opposition to what was provided for in SB1267.

The digital recordings I have been asked to transcribe all had simultaneous speakers, incomprehensible or inaudible speech, and on one notable occasion, the last hour of the proceeding was missing. It is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to produce a verbatim transcript under those circumstances, even though a licensed court reporter will do their best to meet that challenge. I firmly believe, though, that the input of a court reporter during the actual proceedings results in a better end product more expeditiously.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Mary Onuschak, CEO
Legal Video Specialists, LLC
3033 N. Central Ave. Ste 100
602-254-1400
[email protected]

Opposition to R-20-0013 (see attached)

Gary M. Kula
On behalf of Maricopa County Indigent Representation Offices
Arizona Bar #012507
Maricopa County Public Defender Office
620 W. Jackson, Suite 4015
Phoenix, AZ 85003
[email protected]
(602)506-7711

I strongly OPPOSE any rule changes.

My reasonings mirror those of all reporters and supporters who have already voiced their opinions within this forum. Therefore, I will attempt to sway your reasonings from a different perspective:

When I was 14 years old my family suddenly became the victim of a senseless crime. My earliest memories of a steno machine come from attending court hearings and seeing the court reporter plug away. Wow! What an awesome and important profession. This sparked my interest and what would become my ultimate passion for stenography.

I LOVE my job! I LOVE what I do! A person can have many things in life and be very successful within any job, but it's tough to find something you love and are passionate about doing, and to earn a living while doing it. I worked very hard to get through school and pass certification tests in order to be able to wake up every single day and earn a living for my family while doing something I enjoy. Not many people can say that. It's also gratifying to know that just maybe I'm helping to give back in the slightest degree to those families whose shoes I once sat in as a young teenager.

Having said, I ask that you please vote AGAINST the proposed changes. Don't take away the profession in which I'm passionate about, qualified to do, do well and ultimately am able to earn a decent wage at while caring for my young family.

Kristyn Lobry, RPR
Maricopa County Superior Court
[email protected]
602-506-1608
175 W Madison St
Phoenix, AZ 85003

I strongly OPPOSE the Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings.
I have been an Official Court Reporter for 27 years. My first 4 years as a reporter, I worked in LA County Superior Court. I then moved and worked for 9 years in Maricopa County Superior Court and have since worked for Pinal County Superior Court to the present.
I have witnessed many times the difficulties in the FTR and Liberty systems in both Maricopa County and Pinal County where the systems had failed to record due to technical problems and/or unable to decipher the speakers due to courtroom noise, rustling of papers, speakers walking away from the microphone, or a myriad of other issues that causes problems with capturing a clear record of the proceedings.
In each particular case, Defendants and Victims have their right to a clear and accurate record of the proceedings in order to ensure due process and to fulfill their right to appeal. The integrity of the record should be foremost. This is truly not in the best interest of the judicial system as a whole.
Litigants, attorneys, and Judges should not have to listen to a recording or read a transcript that is filled with "Inaudible" or "Indiscernible" blurbs. I have been shown these transcripts by attorneys who were completely dissatisfied with the content of the transcript and unable to discern the meaning of most portions of the record due to the lack of a clear record and missing content in the transcripts. Important and meaningful portions of the proceeding had been left out and had altered the meaning of the statements that were had during the proceedings.
In closing, Certified Court Reporters have an ethical responsibility in taking down the record and in producing a clear and official record of the proceedings. People's lives and liberties are hanging in the balance and should not be left to anything less than a Certified Court Reporter.
I Strongly Oppose the proposed Rule-20-20013 Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Dana Valles, RPR, CSR
Certified Reporter No. 50566
[email protected]

I am writing in opposition to R-20-20013. The means by which the record for legal proceedings is taken and produced is far too important and valuable to let this language be changed and adopted. Court reporters have always been utilized as the gold standard to keeping the record and thus are an integral part of the legal system. Reporters are unbiased professionals hired by the court to take down the verbatim record of the proceedings. Electronic Recording of proceedings to those taken by a Certified Court Reporter who is educated, skilled, and must maintain ethical standards. The ER system does not produce the most accurate record, nor is it produced timely. It’s also often riddled with “inaudible” and “unintelligible” portions. Court reporters are professionals with numerous ethical and continuing education standards that must remain in place for the entirety of their careers. The rule change being proposed is nothing new. As this appears to be the exact same rule change initiated and defeated a few months ago, this proposal seems to be borne from those with a bottom-line budgetary agenda. Ask yourself, is that in the best interest of the litigators and parties of lawsuits in this state? Is that what Arizona citizens deserve? These taxpaying citizens, plaintiffs, defendants, etc., have a right to have the best record made not only of their criminal matters, where life and liberty are at stake, but also their civil proceedings where the opportunity to be made whole financially is resolved. For years the court reporting profession has been threatened by Electronic Recording. The reason court reporters are still employed in courtrooms and by private attorneys in the freelance field and utilized in personnel board hearings for government entities here in this great state and all around the country is because they are the best choice for accurate and efficient transcribed proceedings!
If you are considering passing this rule change, please do your due diligence. Don’t just rely on the legal professionals who have commented in opposition and those who do this job every day to provide you with facts and experiences with ER. Reach out to those states, districts, municipalities that have changed to ER and consider what their regrets are.
Sincerely,
Elva Cruz-Lauer, RMR, CRR
United States Court Reporter
Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. District Courthouse, Ste. 312
401 W. Washington, SPC 33
Phoenix, AZ 85003
[email protected]

Renee Stacy, RPR, CRR
2242 Summerwood Drive
Layton, UT 84040
801-891-1288
[email protected]

I strongly oppose the suggested rule changes. I have been a certified court reporter in Utah for over 40 years and I have firsthand knowledge of the problems we are having here in Utah since certified reporters were replaced with digital recordings in the district courts here. I have been called upon to transcribe some of these disastrous recordings and I am not satisfied with the quality of the written record when I know it could be better. Citizens and litigants deserve better. They deserve the best that they can get, and that is with a live certified court reporter. With recorded proceedings there is NO ONE in charge of making sure the record is being preserved, NO ONE asking for repeats when testimony is not heard because of a door slamming or papers rustling, NO ONE to read back testimony. No one is even aware there is a problem until it's too late, i.e., when that transcript is ordered and a free lance reporter listens to it and discovers that maybe one of the mics wasn't turned on or an attorney and client were whispering to each other (attorney client privilege being recorded), and many other issues that can happen when there is no guardian of the record in the courtroom. That is the certified court reporter's sole job, the keeper of the record.

And now, since COVID and the use of the WebEx platform to hold hearings remotely, there is an even greater need for a live reporter because the recordings are like second-generation recordings when recorded through a remote platform. They are not good. A live certified reporter is needed now more than ever because the reporter has the equipment to cable directly into the proceedings and be able to hear it live more clearly than anyone possibly can from a recording or ask for repeats if it's not clear. I recently transcribed a three-day WebEx trial and it was the worst recording I have ever listened to. There were times when the clerk and the judge were talking to each other (off the record) and that is all I could hear. I couldn't hear the proceedings. There were inaudibles on almost every page of this over-800-page transcript. We need to do better. We can do better and we should do better. It is not more costly to do so.

I oppose the R-20-0013 Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Related to Creating the Verbatim Record of Judicial Proceedings. I worked for the courts in Tennessee for 20 years. I cannot express enough how important it is to have a court reporter taking down all proceedings. They have a courtroom in Tennessee, the Sixth Circuit, that is digital. I was given an audio file to transcribe from a trial from Sixth Circuit. I had to put inaudible and no audible response. An ER system cannot do the job as a court reporter. It cannot interrupt for clarification due to mumbles, accents, participants talking simultaneously, background noises. A court reporter is the guardian of the record. Please vote against making any changes to our current rules.

Thank you,
Terry Libretti, CCR, LCR
[email protected]
PO Box 207
Maricopa, AZ 85139
(615) 587-8013

I opposed this change of rule. R 20-0013
I am a law abiding member of the general public whom many years ago found myself innocently caught up the judicial system. All I could do was have faith that I would be treated fairly and the truth would come out if the process was followed; and it did. To this day I have the court reporter's transcript of my hearing from 30 years ago proving my innocence after a quick hearing in the judge's office. The verbatim transcript showed all charges were dismissed and expunged prior to a full preliminary hearing. Amazingly, months later the court tried to assess me fees and had erroneously mishandled my case. It was only the fact that I had the court reporter's transcript, that I was able to prove to them they were wrong. Had I not received the verbatim transcript from the court reporter, it would have been my word against the court's word and I would have been further victimized by having more stress and anxiety and hearings to try to rectify the court's errors.

The court rreporter was the individual that I knew was not biased, I could see her writing all the words and it calmed me tremendously.

I bring this up to say, I still have that transcript, it has meaning to me. It shows that the system can work and that transcript is a physical reminder and a constant reminder that how lucky that there was a live reporter there for my case and I didn't have to worry the recording could have been lost or that there was blanks from audio malfunctions or multiplespeakers.

I open myself up to you to understand that it will be a major disservice to eliminate court reporters from our justice system. Especially on matters arising in someone's life being at stake. They are the guardians and they take pride in their work.

Thank you.
RSM
Arizona
[email protected]

Please add my objection to the others on previously stated grounds. Additionally I would like to address the provision that reporters/transcribers be required to produce a transcript to the court at no cost. This would seem to be a violation if the Takings Clause under the 5th and 14th Amendments, as ruled on in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, at least as to the transcript when made. A much more interesting question arises with regard to the presumably forced labor to produce one, as they do not come into existence until ordered by an appellant and authorized by the Court.
Thank You,
David M. Waterman
[email protected]
520-400-4010
Oro Valley, AZ

Clark Edwards
[email protected]

With gratitude and reverence I approach this public comment opportunity not only as a certified reporter (CR) but as an observer of litigation activity for many years.

There have been very high levels of confidence, assurance, and trust the bench, bar, and litigants have directed toward and rightfully placed in the hands of diligent, competent, and technologically advanced CRs for many years.

I am in favor of CRs using the latest and most relevant and useful technology to provide the highest quality product for those we serve.

I believe that, overall, the litigation process suffers dramatically when a reporter uses minimal technology or when electronic recording (ER) or other technology is used without a CR.

The Advantage Software for CRs aka Eclipse, brings together artificial intelligence (AI) such as Live Transcribe and works WITH Eclipse software to produce the very best realtime product CRs and technology working in tandem can produce.

I am in favor of administrative offices demanding and insisting upon CRs to team up with and work with their software providers to create realtime that is accessible and usable for all litigants under agreed-upon circumstances so the most verbatim record possible is instantaneously placed before all participants in litigation.

It is well known that placing trust in ER ONLY to preserve a proceeding is dangerous, risky, and full of serious problems. Even an "enhanced" FTR that touts surround-sound power to record even whispering will magnify ALL noises in a courtroom and create a literal circus, a buffet of noises that will destroy a CRs ability to extract the all-important words spoken "on the record" but forever lost by the carnival of sounds so plentiful in a courtroom.

There are scores and scores of noises that may cover up and destroy a listener's ability, preferrably a CR, to then use their education and training to create an accurate record, only if the ER was properly managed, tested regularly, watched over by someone designated exclusively to babysit the monsterous ER that has a "mind" of its own and NO ability to regulate itself.

And then to couple an unregulated, untrained "transcriber" with limited skills related to producing a verbatim transcript on a delayed basis with an ER-produced recording is asking for a "transcript" with "bits and pieces" of any record that may have been preserved by the "great and wonderful" ER.

Several states have experienced firsthand the many problems associated with relying upon ER to preserve proceedings and then returned to CRs creating providing the record.

These states are featured in the April 2021 Journal of Court Reporting article (attached) as having learned the hard way that ER could not and would not deliver as hoped: Texas, New Mexico, New York, Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada, and Kentucky.

Utah is one of the latest to find out the downsides of ER. I worked in Utah 2008 to 2019. Many CRs are in court in Utah for many important proceedings because the attorneys know that is the best assurance their record will actually be produced expertly and in a timely manner. The whole record is there. Not just portions of the record.

For those who order transcripts from an ER recording in Utah, multiple pages are littered with "(unintelligible)" and "(inaudible)" page after page after page.

When informed of the details in the present proposed Rules changes in Arizona (R-20-0013), an Arizona attorney said: "This isn't just bad for court reporters (which it is). It's bad for due process and anyone who seeks to question rulings through appeals or motions to reconsider. This is a mindless proposal."

For those lucky enough to experience the "high" the runner in the movie Chariots of Fire spoke of when he said, "When I run, I feel His pleasure," there is something incredibly satisfying in using our abilities and talents to the highest levels of excellence to create and deliver a product or experience for one's self of someone else.

A technologically-advanced CR is the greatest hope for a record the bench, bar, and litigants can rely on and trust in the long run.