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 19 Jun 2006 05:23 PM by  lkoschney
R-05-0037 Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Relating to Verbatim Recording of Judicial Proceedings.
 62 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>
Author Messages
Traci Wheeler
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 04:59 PM
Traci L. Wheeler, CSR, RPR, CR
Arizona Certified Reporter CR No. 50313
Pinal County Superior Court
Florence, AZ


May 22, 2006

RE: Petition to Amend Various Rules of Procedure Relating to Verbatim Recording of Judicial Proceedings


Dear Honorable Justices:

Thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding the proposed amendments to Rule 28. As an Official Certified Court Reporter for the State of Arizona, I recognize that there are certain courts where a reporter may not be necessary. The proposed amendment, however, concerns me that a Certified Reporter would not be required in all civil proceedings (including medical malpractice, wrongful death, and complex litigation) and juvenile proceedings (including evidentiary hearings, adjudication hearings, and parental rights termination proceedings), and it concerns me that the integrity of the record is not the priority for those in Court Administration.

When I first arrived in Arizona, I was immediately offered a position with Judge Linda K. Scott in the Maricopa County Juvenile Court. I would not hesitate to say that there was ever a severance of parental rights proceeding that was not appealed. Also, the majority of criminal juvenile proceedings were appealed, including those where a change of plea was involved. When FTR was first introduced in Maricopa County, I was asked by Court Administration about where official transcripts were ordered; they, however, chose to ignore that information.

Maricopa County, in their effort to institute FTR for all juvenile proceedings, assured counsel that a reporter would be afforded upon any request made. This was soon changed to 72 hours prior to a hearing, at which point the request would follow the case, to 72 hours prior to each individual hearing, no matter if it was a continued adjudication or severance hearing. I have been a court reporter in an adjudication hearing where a reporter was timely requested and prior to court commencing the juvenile accepting a plea. On the record, the judge (not Judge Scott) questioned the need to have a reporter since it was “only a change of plea” and then had a discussion about who made the request and why and was it necessary to have a reporter. He then proceeded to inform the courtroom that his was an electronic courtroom and that the official record was the FTR. This was all done on the record in front of the juvenile, his parents, and witnesses who were subpoenaed to testify. To think that juvenile matters are not afforded the same courtesy as an adult felony matter is a slap in the face to the young people of this State.

There were many times a similar situation to the above illustration occurred. I do believe that the judges and counsel were pressured by onerous burdens placed upon them by the decision makers in Court Administration who had never placed their foot in a courtroom, had no first-hand knowledge of how a court’s calendar runs, and considers the fiscal bottomline as their first hand priority of how justice should run. It is extremely frustrating and difficult to enter a courtroom after FTR has been instituted because the reporter then becomes almost a referee. Everybody talks over each other at a faster pace than ever before, far exceeding any 225, 250, and oftentimes 300 word per minute pace, parties don’t announce, and visual answers such as shaking of the head are accepted. A clean and accurate record is an afterthought at that point.

Before I left Maricopa County, I was assigned to a very busy, high profile criminal court as a reporter for one of the present associate presiding judges. He had recently rotated off of a family court assignment with a KTR courtroom, and I was told numerous times that his preference is and always has been a live court reporter. I was able to provide him a rough draft after an afternoon of motions and oral argument, whereas before he would have had to listen to an entire CD to pinpoint the exact areas he was interested in. For each trial, I supplied the court and counsel with the last few pages of testimony prior to ending the previous evening recess in order to orientate everybody with where we left off.

I have supplied many overnight and rush transcripts. In the almost 10 years I have been reporting, my notebook computer has accompanied me on every holiday and vacation except for one. The day after I gave birth to my daughter, I was working on my transcript load at the hospital. I take pride in what I do for the court, for counsel and for litigants; I am the one who ensures a true and accurate verbatim copy of the proceedings. I am the one who reminds the parties that an accurate record needs to be made. I have the ability to speak out if, due to the nature of a noisy courtroom or uncomfortable and distressed witness, I can’t hear a question or answer. I have the ability to discern whether a discussion is a private one between counsel and clients. A tape recorder or CD cannot do that, and I daresay that a “monitor” of the proceedings (in Maricopa County, a clerk or bailiff who already has numerous other duties that need tending) cannot effectively and accurately keep a complete log.

One of the materials considered by the KTR was prepared by the Justice Management Institute in a discussion about digital audio systems in the court which quotes Martin Gruen, “Courts that require complete thorough transcripts for attorney use and higher court review will do better with stenographic court reporters…”(1) and that “Beyond the mechanics of making a record, a court reporter, with their experience and knowledge of court system operations, offer a set of skills that will never be found in a machine-based alternative.” (2) In the Minority Position Statement submitted by Maricopa County Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell and endorsed by Marcus Reinkensmeyer and Brian Karth, Superior Court Administration, and Michael Jeanes, Clerk of Court, there is mention of “anecdotal problems” identified in certain cases involving transcription and that “there is no difference in quality between digital recording transcripts and court reporter transcripts.” I have seen several digital recording transcripts of juvenile and domestic cases, and they have many “inaudible” or “undiscernable” statements in them. I have never had that in my record, never seen that in another reporter’s record, and I would say that even one “inaudible” or “undiscernable” is one too many, especially for those who are putting their faith in the court and justice system who have a vested interest in the outcome, the litigants themselves.

It takes a special individual to work in the justice system -- to be a judge, lawyer, or even a court reporter – and those of us who are here, who take pride in our work and have the understanding that the results of our efforts affect others, have the utmost respect for our justice system. It is one that should be blind, not affected by sympathy or prejudice. A video tape or audio tape records the emotions. A written record strips away those emotions. They are words on a page that one can consider without sympathy or prejudice. Scribes and the modern day court reporter have been an integral part of society for hundreds and thousands of years. Court reporters have their own high ethical standards that they are held accountable to and should be accountable to by judges, lawyers and litigants. Court reporters are an integral part of justice and are used by Congress each and every day. A court reporter has been present to record every presidential speech and debate for hundreds of years. The United States government uses the court reporter to this day in important domestic and foreign affairs. Why, after hundreds of years, does the United States government continue to use a court reporter? Because a court reporter is the “gold standard,” which has been proven time and time again. Every citizen in Arizona deserves the same: the complete and accurate verbatim record of their proceedings, and the rights of those citizens should be protected at all cost above and beyond the fiscal bottomline. The complete and accurate record is the very core of the foundation of our judicial system and it should be held with the utmost respect that it deserves.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Respectfully submitted,



Traci L. Wheeler, CSR, RPR, CR
Arizona Certified Reporter CR No. 50313
Pinal County Superior Court
Florence, AZ



(1) Judicial Management Institute, How to Conduct an Assessment of your Court’s Record-making Operations: A Systemic Approach, Volume II: The Resource Manual, page 29 (June 2002)
(2) Ibid, page 28
mjatwood
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 05:26 PM



May 22, 2006



Marvin J. Atwood
Certified Reporter #50080
3030 N. Central Ave., Suite 404
Phoenix, AZ 85012


Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court
1501 West Washington, Suite 402
Phoenix, AZ 85007



RE: Pending Rule Change Petition R-05-0037

To Whom It May Concern:

I respectfully request that the Supreme Court require the presence of a certified court reporter in all civil, juvenile, and criminal evidentiary proceedings in Superior Court. The sanctity of the record is paramount in the execution of justice, and only through the continued use of certified court reporters can the Supreme Court be assured of a competent record both for discovery and appellate decisions. The proposed use of electronic recording to replace the time-honored profession of verbatim stenographic reporters can only lead to additional delays as litigants move through the justice system and the provision of a record which will be totally unreliable as to its accuracy with no assurance of the training, quality and experience of unlicensed transcribers preparing transcripts which impact both personal freedom and which can result in significant financial losses to the litigants.

Sincerely,



Marvin J. Atwood
Certified Reporter # 50080
ecrowley
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 06:08 PM
Patricia Moore
Arizona Certified Reporter (50093)
[email protected]


May 4, 2006

Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court
1501 W. Washington, Suite 402
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Re: Proposed Changes re: Electronic Recording or Court Reporter

To Whom It May Concern:

As an officer of the court, I wish to voice my concern over the proposed changes allowing electronic recording in all civil and juvenile proceedings, as well as other court proceedings in general, in lieu of a certified court reporter.

The use of electronic recording devices was first introduced as a magic bullet to save the court system thousands of dollars by systematically replacing the traditional keeper of the record, the living breathing court reporter. Somewhere along the line, when it was realized the savings were not so great, the new tune of court administrators pushing electronics became one of "look at all the bells and whistles of this system or that". It was evident to many from the beginning of the whole KTR process that the end had already been decided, it was just a matter of selling it to those on the fence.

Courts in Illinois, California, Texas, New Jersey, to name just a few, also went electronic, buying into all the bells and whistles, only to go back to court reporters. Unfortunately, as court administrators continually threaten the jobs of court reporters it is no surprise that soon our numbers will dwindle because who wants to work in a profession that is continually having to defend itself when apparently nobody else has to. Reporters have kept the record for many years and done so in a professional, vigilant manner. Now we understand the record is something that can be typed up by a typist having to spend no more than a minute on an unfamiliar word or an inaudible portion of the electronic record. I suppose if the record now means so little there is hardly reason for a professional highly-trained human being to guard it.

But if the record means more than that, then common sense alone dictates that a person well trained to ensure that the best possible record is made in any proceeding should prevail over a machine. I fear a lot of folks are being sold a bill of goods that will not deliver in the long run. And then it will be too late to undo the damage.

I recently reported a complex civil medical malpractice trial where the attorneys required daily copy. I can do that. Can an electronic recording device provide that overnight copy? Who is going to be doing the transcribing and ensuring it gets into the right hands by morning? What will the chain of command of the record be? I cringe when I think of how many untrained people may be involved in the final product. But apparently court administrators pushing their agendas no longer consider the quality of the record and who will be guarding it.

Don't juveniles deserve to have the best record also? Saying that juvenile court is not a high transcript court may be true, but if it is your son or daughter's liberty at stake you would not want to hear that the machine was not turned on, or that no one was manning the machine to see that it was actually recording, or a transcriptionist not familiar with court lingo totally messed up a court hearing transcript.

Court reporters did not break the system. Court reporters have done their jobs diligently and professionally for years. The system for keeping the record was not broke, but those with an agenda looked to solve the financial woes of the court system on the backs of court reporters. If the proposed changes go through and the Arizona court system becomes an electronic recording Mecca for the hawkers of those devices, I sure hope the state gets what it paid for.



Sincerely,



Patricia Moore
Arizona Certified Reporter (50093)

MGon
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 06:25 PM
Melissa Gonsalves
1802 East La Jolla Drive
Tempe, AZ 85282
(480) 491-2790 (Home)
(602) 230-8448 (Office
(480) 980-6896 (Cell)

May 22, 2006



Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court
1501 West Washington, Suite 402
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Jennifer Greene
Administrative Office of the Courts
1501 West Washington, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85007

RE: PENDING RULE CHANGE PETITION R-05-0037

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to register my concern regarding the above-referenced petition.

By way of background, I have been a practicing court reporter here in this State since 1986. I have worked as a Superior Court official for 11 years and a television captionist/free-lance court reporter for 9 years. In my career, I have had the opportunity to transcribe proeedings made by electronic recording. I am a member of the National Court Reporters Association and the Arizona Court Reporters Association, having volunteered at many posts for the ACRA, up to and including president of the State association when the Supreme Court graciously agreed to oversee our CR program. I consider "court reporting" to be my calling, and I feel I would be remiss to not impart my observations and concerns about the removal of court reporters from the courts of record in favor of E.R.

As a taxpayer, I understand well the economic conditions that have placed the Court in a position to have to consider alternative means for making the court record. I understand that all government/political bodies have a fidiciary duty towards all citizens. I do believe that the Court should place E.R. in courts of limited jurisdiction and in courts where the proceedings could be reheard and reconsidered without much difficulty if the record became jeopardized, which has happened with E.R.

As one who has been asked to transcribe records made by E.R., I can speak to some of the difficulties I have had, the first being the inordinate amount of time that it takes to complete the task. In my experience, the time factor is tripled because I must first take the proceedings down in shorthand, then check the transcript against the recording, and then proof the transcript against the recording. I often cannot hear some of the recording, which requires replaying over and over again portions of the CD or DVD. I have to back up to areas where I could clearly understand in order to apply an educated guess from experience and context as to what was said in the muffled areas. This is the time concuming part of the process. As an observation, for some reason, sometimes the parties forget good record making practices of speaking up, speaking clearly and waiting one's turn to address the judge or make their point. A court reporter doing his or her job properly would never let this happen.

As to the "cost savings" that E.R. offers, I'm sure that the initial outlay of funds for the recording equipment does save money over a salaried reporter with full benefits. And if you never have to make a transcript from those recorded proceedings, you are dollars ahead. I submit that's where the cost savings end. People have to earn a living, and transcription of recorded proceedings is extremely labor intensive for the reasons I described in the prior paragrapgh above. You will pay nearly the same cost, if not the same cost, to transcribe the proceedings as you now pay for a court reporter to transcribe proceedings made in the usual shorthand fashion.

There are ways for the Court to save money on the transcription process by sending its transcript work to, say, India, but I submit that the lack of understanding of our legal process, our "legalese", and even our cultural idioms will affect the quality of the transcription, if you can overcome the risk of sending sensitive information overseas in this day and age. The Court could also hire high school or college students and probably pay them less per page than your average court reporter, but the turnover will be high because this will not be somebody's "calling," but somebody's interim job on their way to their own profession, or worse, somebody's "dead-end job". You cannot do better than to have a court reporter who loves their profession, cares deeply for the record, and applies their skill to the best of their ability in every situation. I can only hope that the Court recognizes the value that that outlook adds to the judicial process.

In closing, I would urge the Court to carefully consider what the wholesale loss of court reporters in our State would do to our legal system, or even the limited displacement of reporters that is currently under consideration. I think the Court would find that the appeals process would bog down in the sense that transcription letter by letter of an entire proceeding at 60 or 70 wpm would cause inordinate delay of the appeals process. While cost savings are an important component of the consideration of the Court, I hopt it will not be the overriding or only consideration.

I would urge the Court to keep its present allocation of E.R. courts in the appropraiate areas and reserve your human reporting resources where they are most needed, your high volume transcript courtrooms.

Thank you very much for considering my comments in your important decision.

Very truly yours,



Melissa Gonsalves, RMR, CRR, CCP
CR 50070
VSpencer
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 06:29 PM
Vivian McClard
ACRA
6262 E. 20th St., T/A 85711
520-869-3257
520-740-8136 (fax)
[email protected]
Attachments
gallens
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 06:41 PM
I would second the comments by Steve Lesher, Esq., posted in this forum. They are very much on point.

I've been asked to transcribe tapes/files previously from some of the courts in AZ and in other states. If you seriously are going to use this method of making the trial record, you will really need to decide what is an adequate record. The recording method comes nowhere close to a Certified Court Reporter in accuracy or timeliness of availability.

The publicity received by the vendors of recording equipment, audio and audio/video, has fostered a decline in the number of students coming into the court reporting field and has lead to a decline in the number of schools that teach the program. They are a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'm sorry to say. We lost a school in Phoenix just recently as an example.

You have the ball in your court, it's your game and you make the rules; but be careful that you don't let all the air out of the ball and then nobody can play.

G. Allen Sonntag, CCR #50194, Certified Realtime Reporter, Registered Diplomate Reporter, Fellow-APR.
JBouley
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 06:42 PM
John Bouley
Certified Reporter
2225 East Ajo Way
Tucson, AZ 85716
(520)740-4539
[email protected]
Attachments
rtreon
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 06:46 PM
Richard Treon
2700 North Central Avenue
#1400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Tel.: 602-285-4401
Fax: 602-285-4483
[email protected]
State Bar #002064
Attachments
mattnclifford
Posts:

--
22 May 2006 06:57 PM
Matt N. Clifford
Attorney at Law
202 West 5th Street
Safford, Arizona 85546
(928) 348-4644
ASBN: 016147

Dear Justices:

I rely upon court reporters to ensure the accuracy of court proceedings. This accuracy is acknowledged in the proposed rule's requirement of court reporters in what are deemed to be the most important proceedings. I believe that it would be a mistake for a court to not provide court reporters at "lesser" proceedings.

Court reporters play a very important part in court proceedings, and I am against the proposed rule change.

Sincerely,



Matt N. Clifford
Attorney at Law
dphares
Posts:

--
30 May 2006 09:40 AM
I am not sure why it is, but it seems that most of the users in this forum are of the opinion that there are only two options for court reporting: Live Court Reporters and FTR Gold. We have been using CourtSmart Digital Recording for three years in our court, and we are exceptionally happy with it. They did a great install, their service is excellent, and we have had no problem providing records for anyone who wants one. If you would like to come to our court and see the system in operation, please feel free to contact us for tour.

David L. Phares
Presiding Judge
Gilbert Municipal Court
55 East Civil Center Drive
Gilbert, Arizona 985296
(480)635-7851
[email protected]
lkoschney
Posts:

--
30 May 2006 06:56 PM
Bryon Middlebrook, P.C.
308 North Agassiz Street
Flagstaff, AZ 86001-4605
928-774-1433
Fax 928-774-1265
Attachments
lkoschney
Posts:

--
30 May 2006 07:10 PM
Miguel A. Benitez
Certified Reporter 50713
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W Jefferson St
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2243
Attachments
lkoschney
Posts:

--
30 May 2006 07:20 PM
Judy A. Gibbons
Maricopa County Superior Court
East Court Building
101 W Jefferson St
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2243
Attachments
lkoschney
Posts:

--
30 May 2006 07:28 PM
Maricopa County Superior Court Court Reporters
101 W Jefferson St
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2205
Attachments
ecrowley
Posts:

--
31 May 2006 06:01 PM
Kara Crosby
2335 E. Ajo Way
Tucson, AZ 85713
Attachments
ecrowley
Posts:

--
31 May 2006 06:02 PM
Aaron Schlesinger
Cochise County Superior Court, Division III
P.O. Drawer CG
Bisbee, Arizona 85603
520-432-8542
Attachments
ecrowley
Posts:

--
31 May 2006 06:04 PM
William R. Preston, Jr.
Preston & Flick, L.L.P.
P.O. Box E
225 N. Leroux
Flagstaff, AZ 86002
928-774-7386
Attachments
ecrowley
Posts:

--
31 May 2006 06:05 PM
Joseph H. Watson
109 E. Speedway Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85705
520-884-0484
Attachments
ecrowley
Posts:

--
31 May 2006 06:06 PM
Louise E. Farinech
10128 East Arizmo Street
Tucson, AZ 85748
Attachments
ecrowley
Posts:

--
31 May 2006 06:09 PM
Frederick M. Aspey
Aspey, Watkins & Diesel
123 N. San Francisco St., Ste. 300
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928-774-1478
[email protected]
Attachments
Topic is locked
Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>