NATIONAL, CENTER FOR STATE COUfiTS
Publication Nuder: NCSC October, 1973 I R0007, I iWLT1-TRACX VOICE WXITING : I( All4 EVFLVATIGN OF COURT 2EPORTIXG TECHNIQUE k NEW /
'Prepared by the National Cecter for State Courts
J. Michael Greenwood 4 4 Ernest H. Short Nancy a. Elkind
This- project was supportea by Grmt Number 72 HI 99-0031-G awarded by the National Institut2 of Law Zcforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Admin- istration, U. S. Department of Justice, mder the Omnibus 3 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 190'8. Points of view ,reflected i;? this documenr, do not necessarily rgprese~tthe. position of the U. S. Departaent of Justice.
Library
r~ILenter tor State LwrtJ 300 Newport Are. Williamsburg, VA 231 83 ABSTRACT
increased problems with traditional court reporting services including rising costs, delays in trznscript production, and manpower shortages of competent court reporters are causing courts to seek new alternatives to obtain official record of proceedings. This project evaluated and demonstrated the feasibili of. multi-track voice writing as a court reporting system. Multi-track voice writing combines the use of electronic recording with a professionally trained voice writer. The voice writer dictates in court the official verbztim record of proceedings on tape and the voices of partici2acts are simultaneously recorded on the same tape. Twenty applicants completed a three-month training program, and achieved excellent levels of proficiency on several state and federal court reporter examinations. In attdition, these voice writers were evaluated by judges in seven states, and judicial reaction was strongly favorable. Cornparison of voice writing to stenotyping indicated several potential advantages to voice writing including: (1) lower transcript costs; (2) faster production of transcripts; (3) faster training and higher proficiency levels of new reporters (4) better court control of transcript process; and (5) independent verification of the record. Included is a syllabus of the trair,ing curriculum and recommended revisions for future training programs. This report concludes that multi-track voice writing is i? practical alternative offering several unique features to improve court reporting services by eiiminating transcript delays while attaining high transcript standards. TABLE OF CONTENTS ,
Page CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND . 1.1 Problems in,Court Reporting ...... 1 1.2 Methods of Court Reporting...... 3 1.3 Purpose of Study ...... 5 1.4 Definition of Multi-Track Voice Writing 8
CKAPTEX XI: SELECTION TRAINING OF VOICE WRITERS 2.1 Selection ...... 10 2.1.1 Selection and Recruitment of Trainees ...... 10 2.1.2 Evaluation of Selection Process 14
2.2 Trainins ...... 16 2.2.1 Scope of Training ...... 16 2.2.2 Training Program ...... 19 2.2.3 Student Attitudes ...... 27 2.2.4 Curriculum Changes in Future Programs ...... 29
CHAPTER 111: COURSE EVALUATION 3.1 End-of-Course Tests ...... 30 3.1.1 Description of State and Federal Examinations ...... 31 3.1-2 Examination Results: New Jersey, New York and Federal Reporters Examinations ...... 33 Page -
3.2 Additional Testin3 ...... 37 __ .. .. 3.2.1 Massachusetts Certified Court --I. . - - -- - Reporter Examination ...... 37 3.2.2 Federal Court Reporter Qualification Test ...... 41 3.3 Evaluation cf Equipment ...... 42 3.4 Recommended, Equipment,Standards . . . . 45
CHAPTER IV: FIELD EVALUATION 4.1 Extent of Court Participation . . . . . 46 4 .2. California: Santa ,ClaraCounty Municipal ,Court ...... 4 9 4.3 Georgia: Fulton County Superior Court . 52 4.4 Louisiana: Criminal District Court, Orleans Parish ...... 54 4.5 Massachusetts: District Courts . , . . 56 4.6 New Jersey: Camden County Court . . . : 60 4.7 Oregon: Multnomah, Clackamas and Lane Counties ...... 63 4.8 Pennsvlvania: PhiladelDhia Court of Common Pleas ...... 68 4.9 Summary of,Field Evaluation ...... 70 Page'
CHAPTER V: COMPARISON OF MULTI-TRACK VOICE WRITING TO OTHER TECHNIQUES 5.1 Comparison of Multi-Track Voice Writing to Shorthand or Stenotype ...... 74 Quality or' the 2ecord . . . . . 75 5.1.2 Delzy in Transcript Production 77 5.i-3 costs ...... 77 5.1.4 Court Procedures and Decorum . 82 5.1.5 Equi2ment ...... 83 5.1.6 Translation of Non-English Testiinony ...... 84 5-2 Comparison of Multi-Track Voice Writer to Audio Recording ...... 85
CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 88
APPENDIX A: SYLLASUS: CONTENT OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION ...... 92 APPENDIX B: CERTIFIED VOICE WRITER COURT REPORTER ...... 97 APPENDIX C : MITFE COPSORATION TECHNICAL REPORTS ...... 100 TABLE OF FIGURES
Page
Figure
1 Summary of Class fnstructicn...... 21 2 Summary of Informal Practice Time ... 22 3 Test Results during Training Program: Atlanta, Georgia ...... 24 Test Results during Training Proqram: Washington, D. C...... 25 Questionnaire and Trainee Responses . . 29 Results of New Jersey Court Reporters Examination ...... 34 7 Results of New York Supreme Court Examination ...... 35 8 Results of Federal Court Reporters Examination ...... 3 6 9 Interview with Judges Concerning Voice Writer Program ...... 48 Preface
During the Fast three years, the National Institute of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has sponsored a series of studies to improve and modernize court reporting techniques. The Systems and Technology Division of the National Center for State Courts has published reports on various reporting techniques including: e computer-aided transcription of stenotype notes e audio-recording e video-taping This study focuses on another alternative, multi-track voice-writing.
0 CEAPTER I--Background, swmarizes the problems in court reporting, describes available court reportin9 techniques, and describes xulti-track voice writing.
o CHAPTER If--Selection and Training of Voice Writers, describes, in detail, the method of selection and training of individuals who participated in an intensive three month voice writer training program. This chapter provides infornation for those court systems or otner organizations interested in developing a voice writer training program.
i 0 CHAPTER 111--Course Evaluation, lists the examination results from various State and Federal Court Reporting tests administered to voice writer trainees during, and at the conclusion of, the training program. e CHAPTER IV--Field Evaluation, discusses the responses from a seven state survey of judges and other court personnel who evaluated the work of voice writers reporting in actual courtroom trials. e CHAPTER V--Comparison of Multi-Track Voice . Writing to Other Techniques, compares voice writing to the most popular court reporting techniques, namely stenotype and audio recording. e CHAPTER VI--Conclusions and Recommendations, summarizes findings from the course and field evaluation; and recommends changes in legislation and court rules of procedure to permit wider use of the voice writing technique in the courts.
ii EXECUTIVE SUMNARY
Objectives
The study had the following objectives:
0 to evaluate the competence and proficiency of trainees in a voice writer training program o to coordinate with several state courts an in-court field evaluation of these trainees 0 to compare multi-track voice .writing to court reporting techniques presently in use 0 to determine the strengths and weaknesses of multi-track voice writing.
Multi-Track Voice Writing
A voice writer does not use manual shorthand or a stenotype machine; instead a multi-track tape recorder and standard microphones are used. The voice writer dictates the official verbatim record of proceedings in final form: all information necessary for the final transcript, including identification of participants, punctuation, non-verbal activities of participants, and other information required to produce the official transcript, is captured on tape in the voice writer's stylized diction. The voice writer's whispered speech is recorded on one channel of a multi-track tape system. The voices 3 of the participants in a court proceeding are simultaneously recorded on another track (or tracks.) of a multi-track system. I The second track (in a two-track system) receives courtroom sounds by means of a microphone mixer. Microphones are
iii placed before different speakers (judge, counsel, witness, etc.); each microphone can be monitored and adjusted by the voice writer. Thus, the court has available for replay the voice writer's official court record and the voices of all participating speakers. Should anyone question the official transcript, I one need merely listen to Track Two of the tape to verify what was said. I The tape recorder is equipped with separate recording and playback heads; the latter are spaced away from the record head to permit slightly delayed replay. This enables the voice writer to monitor continuously 1 the adequacy of the audio record, to ensure that the voice writer's dictation and the actual courtroom voices are on the magnetic tape: if a speaker is difficult to hear, the voice writer can adjust the volume on the speaker's microphone. The audio record can be used as the official record of the proceeding without preparing a transcript. However, if a transcript is required, the court is not necessarily dependent upon the voice writer to prepare 8 the transcript: transcript can be prepared from the voice writer's audio record by a capable typist with a minimum of training. The multi-track voice writing system should not be confused with the stenomask system. While both require an operator skilled in dictation, voice writing is a refinement of the stenomask technique. The voice I writer does not use any mask, a multi-track tape system is used instead of a single track recorder, and completion a of a four to five month training program is required to reach dictaticn proficiency and learn courtroom procedures and nomenclature.
iv Training 'Program
Twenty-two persons were selected to attend a I three month voice writer training program. Trainees were selected from four metropolitan areas based on per-sonal interviews and a qualification examination measuring verbal comprehension, grammar, spelling and punctuation skills. While there were no mandatory 8 educational requirements, the average trainee had a baccalaureate degree but had no previous court reporting 8 experience. The trainees received classroom instruction in I'various court reporting skills including: dictation techniques, transcribing, legal and medical terminology, I operation and maintenance of electronic recording equipment, court procedures and policies, and preparation of transcripts. c In addition, trainees practiced after class on their deficiencies. Curriculum changes were recommended for future voice writer training prcgrams; in particular, greater emphasig on actual court observation and reporting I experience in a court, intensive technical training on the operation and repair of the recording equipment, and I a'dditional classroom instruction on court procedures and nomenclature.
V Course Evaluation
Several state and Federal court reporter examinations, including New York Supreme Court, New Jersey, and Federal tests, were administered to all trainees at the completion of the classroom instruction. In addition, several trainees took the certified court reporters examination given by the Massachusetts Superior Court. The results achieved by trainees on all the examinations were excellent. On the New Jersey examination, all graduates attained final grades surpassing 97.5% with an average score of 99.1%. The New York examination results were comparable with an average final score of 98.7%, and the Federal court reporter qualification test results were also impressive with voice writers averaging 98.8%. These examinations measured court reporting skills at 220 words per minute for four voice testimony and 200 words per minute for single voice testimony. Of thirty-two applicants, including six voice writers, who took the Massachusetts certified court reporters examination, six voice writers were among the top seven applicants. These results indicated that these voice writers met and surpassed present certified court reporting standards.
vi Field Evaluation
In the field evaluation phases of this project , fourteen.voice writers were assigned to work as court reporters for judges in seven states. With one exception, there was unanimous agreement among the judges that the quality and preparation time of the transcripts produced by voice writers were equal to or better than stenotypists. The judges also agreed that the demeanor of the I voice writers was appropriate, and that the use of this new technique in the courtroom caused no disturbance nor required any changes in courtroom procedures. Attorneys I were not disturbed by the technique, fcund the quality of transcript good, and liked the capability to independently 1 verify the court reporters transcript. Judges strongly approved of the multi-track recording; c in particular, the ability to verify the voice writer's official record by listening to the actual voices of the participants on a separate track of the tape. The two recordings--the voice writer's record and the voices of the participants-provide a back up for each other. Although the judges were unanimous in their approvzl of the back up and verification features several stenotypists rated it as useless. The greatest number of cr.iticisms and suggestions for improvements were in the area of training. Although most judges agreed that the voice writers were well trained in the actual technique of voice writing, there were three areas where is was felt additional training should have been provided:
vii technical problems related to the equipment knowledge of judicial environments and proceedings 0 actual in-court practice. The overall assessment of the voice writing technique by those who worked with it was strongly favorable. The quality of the transcripts provided were at Least as good as stenotype transcripts. Most judges indicated that if they had an opportunity to employ a voice writer in the future, they would be inclined to do so. The results of this field evaluation are encouraging, and indicate that this new technique of recording judicial proceedings is a viable alternative to those methods currently being used.
viii Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on a six month evaluation of multi-track voice writing, it is concluded that: Multi-track voice writing is a practical court reporting technique. The graduates of this voice writing 1 training program attained better court reporting examination scores than most 1 graduates of stenotype schools. After: a few months of experience in courts, Joise writers are comparable in ability to experienced stenotype court reporters. Voice writers can be trained in less than six months compared with a minimua of 24 months for stenotypists. The transcripts produced by voice writers are equivalent to, or better than, transcripts prepared by experienced stenotype court reporters. Voice writing permits the court to control more easily the official record and production of transcripts. Voice writing provides the court with the alternative of two types of official record of proceedings: audio record or transcript. 0- Voice writers should be equipped with reliable and portable tape recording systems.
ix Based on an evaluation of this particular voice I writer training program, it is concluded that: I Performance
0 Voice writers can be trained within six months to become competent court reporters. 0 Trainees achieved high levels of proficiency I on several state and federal reporter examinations. 0 Trainees received strongly favorabls comments 1 from judges who observed voice writer reporting in the courtroom. I'0 The recording equipment selected met equipment standards, but additional evaluation and testing of other audio equipment should be done. ? Curriculum e Trainees should complete a minimum of twelve . weeks of classroom instruction. 0 Trainees should be required to practice under actual courtroom conditions for a minimum I of four weeks. e Trainees should be instructed by persons who have experience in recording courtroom proceedings
and who have experience with the voice writing ' technique. 0 Qualified applicants for a voice writer training program should possess strong language skills.
X I
c Compared- with stenotype or shorthand court I reporting the multi-track voice writer technique provides: e Greater availability of reporter's time in the 1 courtroom e Fewer steps in transcript preparation e Availability of independent verification of the I reporter's record e Court control of the transcript process (costs, I qualityr and time) 0 Potentially lower manpower and transcription I costs e Capability for recording non-English speaking participants 1 Greater frequency of equipment probl-oms caused e 1 by electronic malfunctions. Presentlyr- many statutes and court policies do c not permit courts to take advantage of the voice writing technique. Competence in reporting should be determined I by the final product, the official record, -not the techniauesA used to record proceedings. Statutes and court rules should be altered: I 0 To change qualification exams from certified shorthand reporter examinations to certified I court reporter examinations e - 1 of reporting technique, to become an official court reporter I 0 To raise required proficiency levels of court reporters. I c Xi I I CHAPTER I -.-- BACKGROUND
1.1 Problems in Court Reporting
Courts of record almost universally require a method of preserving.testimony in order to maintain an official record of proceedings for use during the trial and on appeal. PresenLly, the majority of courts of record use a stenotype or shorthand court reporter. Several problems have created an interest in modifying or replacing present court reporting techniques: o Backlogs in transcript production causing delays in the appellate review process o Rising costs of court reporting services--rising manpower costs for competent court reporters and rising costs of producing the official transcript 0 Shortages of qualified court reporters--causing some jurisdictions to lower court reporting I qualification standards 0 Lack of verification of court reporter's notes- dependency upon reporter's unverified notes I e Control of the transcription process by court reporters 1 0 Lack of court control over court reporting services; i.e., lack of sufficient and I effective administration of court reporting I systems through selection and performance
'Miles N. Ruthberg C Ernest H. Short, "Administration of Court Reporting in the State Courts", National Center for State c Courts Work-In-Progress Series; NCSC WO001, February, 1973. ' standards; transcript production rates; C. utilization of court reporters' time I o Restrictive laws and court policies which unnecessarily limit the type of reporting system that can be used. I _. I I I I I
- 2- 1.2 Methods of Court Reporting
I Several court reporting methods are presently in use in State or Federal courts. These methods include:%
I a. Manual Shorthand: The reporter records proceedings, using pen or pencil, then transcribes from his I notes at a later time. b. Machine Shorthand: The reporter records proceedings, I using a Stenotype, Stenograph, or Stenoprint machine, then usually dictates his notes onto an audio tape I recorder for himself or a typist to use in preparing the transcript. C. Audio Recording: A record is made electronically I by microphone pickup of courtroom voices, recorded. on tape by a single or multi-channel recorder. I The equipment operator or typist can later type the transcript from the audio tape or the tape t itself can serve as the record. d. Voice Writing: The reporter records proceedings I by dictating in court a taped recording from which either he or a typist can later transcribe. I Microphones are used to pick up courtroom speech on one or more tracks of audio tape, while the I reporter simultaneously dictates the proceedings on a sepzzate channel of the tape, employing stylized diction to give transcriber instructions, I sneaker identification, and punctuation. I "Selection of a Court Reporting Method for the Oregon District I Courts", National Center for State Courts Report Series, NCSC R0003, May, 1973, pp.4-5.
- 3- e. Video Recording: The record is made electron- ically by direct camera and microphone pickup, of individuals' images and voices onto video- tape; if needed, a transcript can be made using the audio portion of the video tape.
b I -4- 113 Purpose of Study
The objective of this study was to evaluate a multi-track voice writing system. The following tasks were entailed: determine the strengths and weaknesses of multi-track voice writing; compare the voice writing system to other court reporting systems now in use: recruit and select voice writer trainees; evaluate trainees' competence and proficiency at the completion of a voice writing training program; and coor- dinate with state courts a field evaluation of graduates from the training program. The multi-track voice writing system under evaluation has been claimed to offer several advantages3 over other available court reporting systems: Voice writer trainees can be trained within six months to become competent court reporters, compared with twenty-four months for stenotype trainees. Voice writer trainees can attain performance standards exceeding existing court requirements. These standards are 220 words per minute for question & answer examinations or any multiple- voice testimony, and 200 words per minute for single-voice statements such as jury charge, or attorney's opening and closing arguments.
A more detailed analysis and comparison of the multi- track voice writing system to stenotype and audio recording systems is reported in Chapter V.
- 5- \
e The voice writer's transcript can be verified. . If the court or counsel believes the transcript is erroneous, the recording can be audited. Stenotype or stenomask systems do not provide for such verification. 0 The court can regulate the entire court reporting process. The audio recording can be usedt instead of the transcript, as the official record. The voice writer can work full time in the courtroomr while most stenotypists need out-of-court time to dictate for typists; and courts can directly control the priorities and flow of transcript preparation. 0 Court reporting costs and transcript delays can be reduced. Stenotypists or shorthand reporters usually require a three stage process to prepare the transcript (shorthand notes in the court, translation of the notes usually by dictation, preparation of transcript by a typist) compared to a two stage voice writer process (verbatim dictation on tape in the court; and preparation of transcript by a typist). 0 Courtroom testimony and court reporter verbatin official record are both preserved on tape for playback in the court and for immediate trans- cription if desired. In the course of the study, the National Center for State Courts was to evaluate these claims. The National Center located judges and court administrators who were willing to evaluate new reporters trained in the multi-track voice writing technique. The selection and training of voice writers was sub-contracted to Mr. Joseph Gimelli, Chief, Official Reporters to Committees,
-6- House of Representatives, who had developed a "twin-track" 1 voice writing system and training program. The progress of the training program was monitored and trainee performance n capabilities were evaluated by the National Center for State Courts. 1 II 21 I' 1 t 15 3 a
-7- i. 4 Definition of Multi-Track Voice Writing
.. A voice writer does.not use manual shorthand or a -stenotype machine: instead a multi-track tape recorder and standard microphones are used. The voice writer dictates the official verbatim record of proceedings in final form: all information necessary for the final transcript, including identification of participants, punctuation, non-verbai activities of participants, and other information required to produce the official transcript, is captured on tape in the voice writer's stylized diction. The voice writer's whispered speech is recorded on one channel of a multi-track tape system. The voices of the participants in a court proceeding are simultaneously recorded on another track (or tracks) of a multi-track system. The second track (in a two-track system) receives courtroom sounds by means of a microphone mixer. Microphones are placed before different speakers (judge, counsel, witness, etc.); each microphone can be monitored and adjusted by the voice writer. Thus, the court has available for replay the voice writer's official court record and the voices of all participating speakers. Should anyone question the official transcript, one need merely listen to track two of the tape to verify what was said. The tape recorder is equipped with separate recording and playback heads; the latter are spaced away from the record head to pernit slightly delayed replay. This enables the voice writer to monitor continuously tne adequacy of the audio record, to ensure that the voice writer's
-8- I
C dictation and the actual courtroom voices are on the I magnetic tape; if a speaker is difficult to hear, the voice writer can adjust the volume on the speaker's 1 microphone . The audio record can be used as the official record of proceeding without preparing a transcript. However, if a transcript is required, the court is not necessarily dependent upon the voice writer to prepare 8 the transcript; transcript can be prepared from the voice writer's audio record by a capable typist with a minimum E of training. The multi-track voice writing system should not be confused with the stenomask system, a technique used primarily in military courts. In the stenomask system, the reporter repeats verbatim the courtroom testimony into
a microphone- encased in an insulatedmask. Multi-track voice writing is a refinement of the stenomask technique. Voice writing varies from stenomask in the following ways: While both require the reporter to have skilled diction, 1 the voice writer does not use any mask; his muted speech is received by a standard microphone. A mask is a disadvantage J because it is unsanitary; it often provides sounds which are muffled and distorted; and there is difficulty in using the 8 mask for extended periods of time. The voice writer uses a multi-track tape system in place of the single track I recorder presently used by stenomask reporters. The voice writer is required to complete a four to five month training '1 program to attain dictation proficiency and to learn court- room procedures and nomenclature; while stenomask reporters either attend courses emphasizing dictation speed without formal courses in courtroom procedures or they are
-9- ..
CHAPTER 11 \
SELECTION AND TRAINING OF VOICE WRITERS
.. .2.1 Selection .,2.1.1 Selection and Recruitment of Trainees
Mr. Gimelli was responsible for establishing the qualifications and procedure in the selection of applicants for the voice writer training program. The following qualifications were specified as skills or attributes an applicant should possess for the training program: 0 Vocabulary: A reporter is called upon to record hearings covering a very broad range of subjects, including many technical fields. Many words with completely different meanings sound alike, and the ability to discriminate from context is indispensable. 0 Grammar and punctuation: A faulty understanding of English grammar, i.e., an improperly placed punctuation mark can distort the intent of the speaker. 8 Spelling a Typing 0 Clarity of expression 0 Enunciation 0 Maturity Interest in court reporting
-10- I
b A three-part qualification examination developed by s Mr. Gimelli was given to evaluate each applicant's language skills; namely,- vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, and 1 .spelling. The untimed examination consisted of: Section 1 Verba1 comprehension and grammar (40 multiple-choice 1 questions) ; Section 2 - punctuation (5 sentences) ; Section 3 - grammar and spelling (10 sentences). A passing grade of 805 on each section was required. Mr. Gimelli 1 considered the applicant's language skills to be very important. E In addition, Mr. Gimelli interviewed each applicant to assess other skills and personal attributes, and review I the examination results. No specific level of formal education was required I of applicants; the trainees selected ranged in formal education from high school graduate to master degree graduate. To keep training time to a minimum and obtain a high success rate among trainees, it was preferred to select students with good verbal comprehension and good English language I skills. Applicants with lower language skill scores (above 65%) would have been acceptable if the training program were .II several weeks longer. If an individual with inadequate basic qualifications is accepted, extensive remedial work in language 1 skills must be added. None of the individuals selected had previous experience 1 as a court reporter. Some trainees had previous shorthand or IC typing training, but others had no stenographic skills whatever. IC -11- Ic The National Center for State Courts required Mr. Gimelli to rate each applicant on a four-point scale: 0 Highly qualified: no deficiencies; high 1 probability of completing training program 0 Qualified: few deficiencies (easily correctable) ; i high probability of completing training program 0 Marginally qualified: Several deficiencies I (correctable); reasonable probability of meeting training standards ant! completing program I- 0 Disqualified: many deficiencies; low probability ‘I of meeting standards and completing program. Judges and court administrators in eight states were contacted to participate in the program, and candidates were interviewed and selected from four metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Georgia; Boston, Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon: and Washington, P D. C. Twenty-two trainees were selected from a total of 49 1 applicants: 0 In Atlanta, seven out of seventeen persons s interviewed were selected. 0 In Boston, five out of eleven persons 8 interviewed were selected. 0 In Portland, six out of sixteen persons 1 interviewed were selected. 0 In Washington, D. C., four out of five persons interviewed were selected. 1 The distribution of ratings among the 22 candidates a selected was: Qualified (4) ; Marginally Qualified (15);
I
-12- and Disqualified (3). At the request of the National Center for State Courts the three applicants rated as "Disqualified" by Mr. Gimelli were accepted into the training program. This procedure was used to help assess the selection criteria; i.e., do applicants who are rated . as disqualified pass the training program: and do qualified applicants fail the training program?
-13- ~1, 2.1.1 Evaluation of Selection Process I Student ratings were compared to student accomplishments in the training program, including court I reporter examination results. The student ratings were accurate in differentiating I between graduates and non-graduates of the training program. Of the three students who were rated as "Disqualified" for the training program, none successfully completed the I entire course- One left the program after the first week of training to continue other educational pursuits, one failed I the court reporter examination, and the other individual did not attain the required typing skills. I, All students given "Qualified" and "Marginally Qualified" ratings successfully graduated from the training program. Both rated groups did equally well on the court reporting examinations and courtroom performance. The basic aptitudes and skills used in the selection process were apparently appropriate in rejecting unqualified applicants, but the ratings did not accurately predict the 8 degree of competence in court reporting skills. Additional predictive studies on larger populations are needed before I the selection criteria can be more reliably validated. Since this was an evaluation of a new reporting I technique, applicants were carefully screened to insure qualified trainees. The average trainee possessed a 1 baccalaureate degree, but nine trainees had two years or less of college education- There was no difference 0 between the court reporting skills--based on examination I scores and field evaluation--of the non-college and college
-14- C graduates in the voice writing training program. Applicants with the necessary qualification skills can be found among various educational levels. Applicants should be carefully screened before acceptance into a voice writing training I program. I I
I I
1 8 1 I I
-15- 2.2 Training
2.2.1 Scope of Training Program
Subjects on which trainees received instruction included : e Dictation technique e Typing e Transcription from the student's om dictation as well as that of other students a Transcript format and various transcription forms a Legal and medical terminology as well as language peculiar to courtroom use a Use of equipment (recorder, transcriber, mike mixer, and typewriter) 0 Practice methods a Keeping a log of court proceedings 0 Punctuation and sentence construction, with illustrations of ambiguities caused by incorrect punctuation a Attendance in court and discussions with working reporters, A syllabus of the Washington, D. C., training program is listed in Appendix A. A descriptive summary follows : o Various functions of the tape recorders and accessory equipment were explained, and students were instructed in the operation of each piece of equipment, e Dictation was practiced, using Nztional Shorthand Reporters Association dictation tapes. Speeds varied from 140 words per minute up to 260 words per minute. There was no particular order with regard to the speeds; however to improve the quality and speed of trainee dictation, speeds 4
-16- were gradually increased over several weeks. I Students were also asked to read back their 'dictation while the rest of the class followed the reading from their own dictation. Another I approach used was to play a dictation at 250 words a minute for a period of perhaps ten 1. minutes. The next "take" would then be at 180 words a minute; the abrupt change to 180 words I a minute would make the passage seem slow, and therefore, easy for the student to handle. In I addition, students were selected to read back the dictation of the person next to him, and so on. I This was to effect interchangeability of dictation. Trainees were encouraged to discuss dictation 1 defects with one another. 0 Live dictation was practiced with single-voice and multiple-voice question and answer. Students were asked to read back, frequently interchanging readbacks with one another. I 0 Much of the live dictation simulated actual courtroom situations. The courtroom situation I would be discussed in detail--the manner of handling more than one speaker at a time, the t reporter's responsibility in the event he does not hear what is said. 1 0 Practice transcripts were produced from taped and live dictations. These papers were reviewed 1 by the instructor for mistakes. 0 Lists of Latin, legal and medical phrases and terms were provided along with definitions. 1 The students were given practice dictation exposing them to the usage of legal and medical terminology in court.
-17- b ~. 0 .At the end of each session the students were given a practice assignment for the next day-- I either dictation, speed typing, transcription, or vocabulary. Students were often given special I .- .. assignments to correct personal deficiencies. 0 Transcripts were reviewed for drill in proper punctuation and sentence construction.
1c -18- 2.2.2 Training Program
After the voice writer trainees were recruited and selected, two separate training programs commenced. Seven trainees in Atlanta, Georgia, met twice a week starting February 22, 1973 (three hours per session) for formal class instruction in courtroom facilities made available by the Fulton County Superior Court. Usually these classes were held on the weekend (Friday night and Saturday morning) since most trainees had full-time employment. All trainees resided in the Atlanta metro- politan area. Fifteen trainees began formal class instruction on March 20, 1973, in rented facilities at the Sheraton-Park Hotel, Washington, D. C. and met four or five days per week. Only four trainees resided in the Washington metropolitan area: the others came from Oregon or Massachusetts. Trainees in both programs were required to accomplish extensive out-of-class practice. At each training session in Atlanta and Washington, D. C., the instructor tape recorded all instruction and submitted an outline summarizing instructional activities at each session. In addition, each student kept a personal daily log of any practice time spent on skills related to the voice writing technique.
. -19- Training hours spent on formal class instruction and practice time at each training location are reported in Figures 1 and 2. Mr. Gimelli organized and ran the entire training program at both locations under contract. The development of the curriculum and class instruction were provided by Mr. Gimelli and his assistants, Mrs. Betty Ward and Mr. John Byers. Mr. Gimelli has been a stenotype reporter for over 37 years and is considered to be one of the most proficient stenotypists in the country. Mrs. Betty Ward is employed as a free-lance reporter. She is a former court reporter trainee of Mr. Gimelli's and an experienced secretary. Mr. John Byers, another instructor trained by Mr. Gimelli, is a court reporter in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Mr. Byers was a stenotype reporter until the loss of part of his right hand. Mr. Gimelli retrained him in the stenomask technique enabling him to continue his career as a court reporter. Three key skill areas were continuously monitored and evaluated: voice writing proficiency, transcription skills, and typing speeds. Several times during the training program tests were given to evaluate the progress of each trainee. The results of these practice tests are given in Figures 3 and 4. The tests were based on the final transcript submitted by the trainee (except for one Atlanta student who did not practice typing skills and, therefore, did not transcribe the dictation).
-20- FIGURE 1
Summary of Class Instruction*
Atlanta , Georgia Washington, D.C. (Feb. 22 through (March 20 through May 19, 1973) May 28, 1973) I Type of Instruction (6 Students) (14 Students)
Dictation (and Readback) 1 from NSRA Tapes 40 1/4 64 1/4
Transcription- of Dictation 8 3/4 18
.InstructionI in Dictating, Transcribing, and Typing 12 1/4 23 3/4 1 Use of Equipment 7 3/4 4 3/4 Miscellaneous (Courtroom Visits, Typing Test, etc.) 6 1/4 1 3/4
89 hrs. 130 1/4 hrs. .I - I
*For a detailed outline of a course, see Appendix A.
-21- FIGURE 2
I I Atlanta, Georgia- -I 'Washington, D.C. Type of (6 students) 1 114 students 1 1 Practice Average I Range Average I 2ancre Dictation and 43 hrs. 14 3/4- 46 hrs. 20-68 hrs. I Readback 84 3/4 hrs. Transcribing 18 1-47 62 23 1/2-134 I Typing 11. 0-39 1/2 29 0-49 1/2 In-Court 1 Reporting 8 0-17 0 .o In-Court Observing 3 0-11 3 1-6 I Study of Terms -- 0-4 -- 0-22 Total 83 hrs. 137 hrs.
I Note.--Data compiled from students' progress report forms submitted I weekly
-22- In both programs, nearly all trainees made steady progress. The test results listed in Figures 3 & 4 demonstrate a steady improvement in trainee's proficiency; i.e., increase in dictation speeds while I maintaining high accuracy. Most trainees achieved accuracy above 99% while increasing their dictation speeds from 150 I words per minute to 210 words per minute for single-voice testimony and from 190 words per minute to 260 words per I minute for multiple-voice testimony. Most trainees reached required proficiency--200 words per minute for single-voice I and 220 words per minute for multiple-voice testimony-- before two-thirds of the formal instruction program was completed. These results infer that both types of training I programs--in Washington, D. C., the intensive full-time program, four to five days per week, and in Atlanta, Georgia, .8 the twice weekly formal classes and greater reliance on P student practice--are effective. I I I I I I
-23- FIGURE 3
Test Results During Training ?rogrm* Atlanta, Georgia
A B C D E F
March 3 I NSRA 180-2 Literary (150 wpm) Grade A A A A A A Jury Charge (175 wpm) Grade A A A A A A Q C A (190 wpm) Grzde A- A A A A A-
March 24 NSRA 200-1 Literary (160 wpm) Accuracy 99+% 99+% 98% 99+% 99+% 99+% Jury Charge (180 wpm) Accuracy 99+ 99+ 99+ gg+ gg+ gg+ Q & A (200 wpm) Accuracy 100 99+ 99+ 9g+ 100 gg+
April 13 NSRA 200-4
Literary (160 wpm) Accuracy 99+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 98.5 98.5 Jury Charge (180 wpm) Accuracy 99+ 9 9+ 99+ 99+ 99+ 98 Q & A (200 Wm) Accuracy 99+ 99+ 98.5 99+ 99+ 98.5 April 27 NSRA 230-3 Jury Charge (210 wpm) Accuracy 98.5 98.5 92.5 98.5 99 98 Q & A (230 wpm) Accuracy 99 99.5 96 99.5 99' 99 Q & A (260 wFn) Accuracy) 96.5 98.5 N.A. 98.5 97.5 96
* Aii practice tests were taken from the Nationai Shorthand Reporters Association practice tapes which were not previ- ously heard by the trainees. On March 3, 1973, a letter grade was given (A = 99+& accuracy, A- = 98.5 to 99.0% accuracy).
-21- *' LL + + I 00 * 00 a0 COO a00 ac4 mm mm mw + + + b a0 I-0 f-m m-3 I .-- mq mu P cvcv + + + I c . a0 am QIO mm mcv aln ** -. m 3 E a k tr 0 c cvN k P4
. fi rld u. 0 c ow c G 0 kk + + + C 00 * . 00 a30 0I.O I-0 mfi me m0 aa 4 C +: QIO QIO I mm mm mu,go I P
I 4J tn al d I3
d I I t-0 Na3 d c 2!g
9 E., >I c: E 1- 1
E P
cv (v k c . . 0 0 . 0 I'n QIIn mu) m0 m m 0 a mm m-3 mu) m m nl Q) 1 E: k E .rl JJ c P YOt0 W 2 C P 3 C3 H m a hl t- m Lc c 0 0 0 . . 0 QIO CnO COO 03 co m e mcr mu) mu) QI m m c m u u) co 3 . 0 . . . mln mm QIO m m a3 I mm mw mln m m QI I t FIGURE 5
Questionnaire f Trainee Responses
A. How would you evaluate the amount of time that was spent on each study? Answer I. Too much 2. About right 3. Too little (prefer more)
B. How important was it to you to prepare yourself as a "voice writer" court reporter to have each activity? Answer 1. Extremely important 2. Very 3. Moderately 4. Little 5. No importance
C. How satisfied were you with the following formal training activity:
I' Answer 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Neutral 4. Dissatisfied 5. Very Dissatisfied QUESTION A B C Activity L - (Group average of 21 trainees) Formal classes 1.96 1.81 2.81 Informal classes (personal practice) 2.19 1.48 2.19 Dictation - NSRA tapes - single-voice 1.81 1.62 1.90 DiEitation - NSRA tapes - multiple-voice 2.43 1.62 2.24 Dictation - live - single- voice 2.86 1.43 3.14 Dictation - live - multiple- voice 3.00 1.34 3.71 Spelling 2.49 2.43 2.62 General Vocabulary 2.29 2.00 2.43 Medical Vocabulary 2.49 1.57 2.81 Coat 'Terminology 2.57 1.43 3.00 Typing 2.10 1.96 2.14 Transcribing - own dictation 2.00 1.53 2.00 Transcribing another's dictaticn 2.67 1.96 2.71 Logging Procedures 2.62 2.15 2.95 Courtroom Procedures 2.71 1.72 3.52 Court Exposure (observing) 2.49 1.62 3.19 Court Experience (Court Reporting) 2.90 1.67 3.43 Equipment operation 2.10 1.62 2.05 Equipment repair 2.52 2.00 2.81
-28- .
2.2.4 Curriculum Changes in Future Programs
The following curriculum changes are recommended for future voice writing training programs (See Appendix A for comparison o€ number of hours): 0 Increase by 8 to 12 hours the courtroom exposure of any trainee unfamiliar with courtroom activities e Require a minimum of four full weeks of actual courtroom reporting (add 80 to 120 hours) Whenever possible, establish an internship program witha court providing for realistic supervision o Decrease the amount of single-voice dictation and readback using NSRA tapes (subtract 8 to 12 hours) and increase from 8 to 12 hours .. the amount of "live" single and multiple-voice dictation 0 Increase instruction on technical problems with the equipment: setting up and dismantling equipment, minor machine repairs, and placement of'microphones and equipment (add 5 to 8 hours) 0 Increase instruction on court terminology and nomenclature, court rules and procedure, and format of transcripts (add 6 to 10 hours).
-29- CHAPTER TIT
COURSE EVALUATION
3.1 End-of-Course Tests
At the completion of training, a series of State and Federal court reporters examinations were administered under the supervision of the National Center for State Courts to evaluate the trainees' verbatim reporting and transcription skills. These examinations were used to evaluate the trainees' proficiency instead of the system's efficiency; therefore, trainees were permitted to transcribe only from their own verbatim dictation (Track 1); they would have been disqualified if they resorted to the recording of the actual testimony (Track 2).* Observers and evaluators included project personnel as well as representatives from the New York Civil Service Commission and the Massachusetts District Courts. On May 24, 29, 30 and 31 in Washington, D. C., and May 25, 26 and June 1 and 2 in Atlanta, Georgia, the voice writer trainees were given court reporter examinations for the Federal court, New Jersey court, and the New York Supreme Court.
* One trainee did not attain.sufficient typing skills, his scores were computed by listening to Track 1 (voice writer's official record of proceedings) of the tape. One trainee was disqualified from the training program before the final examination; however, she was permitted to take the examinations at the request of the sponsoring court.
-30- 3.1.1 Description of State and Federal Examinations
The Federal court reporters examination consisted \I of five segments: 0 Literary: 180 wpm for 5 minutes 8 e Two Voice Q & A: 220 wpm for 5 minutes 0 Medical Q & A: 180 wpm for 5 minutes (each 9 medical error counts as four errors ) 0 Four Voice Q & A: 220 wpm for 5 minutes f 0 Jury Charge: 200 wpm for 5 minutes Four and one-half hours was allowed for trans- e cription of the five sections of the exam (a dictionary was available for spelling of medical terms). 3 The New Jersey Administrative Office court reporters examination (the standards for this examination !!I are lower than the standards for the New Jersey certified shorthand reporters examination) consisted of three segments: P 0 Four Voice Q & A: 200 wpm for 5 minutes o Two Voice Medical Q t A: 175 wpm for 5 minutes 0 Jury Charge: 175 wpm for 5 minutes Transcription of the three sections was to be completed within three hours (without the use of any dictionary). The New York Supreme Court examination consisted of four segments: e Counsel Opening Statement: 175 wpm for 3 minutes e Medical Q & A: 200 wpm for 4 minutes 0. Four Voice: 200 wpm for 4 minutes Jury Charge: 175 wpm for 3 minutes Transcription was required within three hours (without use of any dictionary).
-31- The three examinations used similar scoring procedures except for incorrect spellings. One full point was deducted for each of the following errors in the verbatim transcript: an omitted word; an extra word; an improper punctuation mark (changes meaning of the original testimony); a proper name, title or address not properly capitalized; a missing or wrcrng identification of the speaker (such as incorrect question and answer); an incorrect word including typographical error or misspelling, Slightly different scoring procedures were used for a word misspelled: The New Jersey exam deducted one full point for each word misspelled; the New York exam deducted one full point the first occurrence but made no further deductions for errors with the same word; and the Federal exam deducted a full point for the initial occurrence and one-half point for each additional occurrence. All examinations required a total grade of 95% to pass
-32- 3.1.2 Examination Results: New Jersey, New York and Federal Reporters Examinations
The trainees did excellently on the three court e. reporter examinations. On the New Jersey examination, all graduates attained final grades surpassing 97.5%, the average graduate score was 99.1%. Most trainees were well above 99% accuracy. The average scores were 99.2&, 99.3% and 98.8% on the three parts of the examination. Figure 6 contains a detailed breakdown of the New Jersey test results. The results on the New York Supreme Court examination were comparable: Twenty graduates averaged 98.7% on the final grade. The average scores on the four parts of the test were 99.3% on two single-voice dictations at 175 wpm, 99.3% on general four-voice dictations, and 98.0% on four-voice medical dictation. Figure 7 lists all the New York examination results. The results on the Federal qualification examination were also excellent. The voice writer trainees achieved an overall average of 98.8%. Trainees averaged above 98.5% and 99.5% on two sub-tests of multiple-voice testimony at 220 words per minute, 98.8% on multiple-voice medical testimony, and 98.4% and 98.7% on single-voice dictation. (see Figure 8) Because there are no national standards for court reporters, these examinations can only be taken as repre- sentative of high current norms. The test results do strongly suggest that voice writers are competitive with competent court reporters using other modes of reporting.
-33- co. co m
4
m m m
.. !
-34- u) m. . I- 00 co m
m d m
m m . 4 m m QI m
m. m. N QI m m
CI 0. 0 (XJ co m
m. m. I- m cn m 9) % 3 a
d 0 !-4a z w3 0 k W -35- 7 0 a3 03 m
d 03 m
c 0 4 4J a c . ad u1 9 E: X 0 w
c 0 dp ln
N
"k
-36- . .- 3.2 Additional Testing 3.2.1 Massachusetts Certified Court Reporters Examination
-. On June 16, 1973, the committee which determines reporters for the Massachusetts Superior Court* gave the Massachusetts certified court eeporters examination to 32 applicants including six voice writers (four residing in Boston and two residing in Washington, D. C.), 24 steno- typists , one shorthand reporter, and one stenomask reporter. The four-part examination consisted of: four-voice Q & A . at 200 wpm for 5 minutes; counsel argument at 170 wpm for 5 minutes; two-voice medical Q & A at 176 wpm for 5 minutes and Jury Charge at 180 wpm for 5 minutes. Each applicant was evaluated for quality of transcripts produced and readback of recorded testimony. Applicants were permitted unlimited time for typing transcript and the use of dictionaries to check spelling. Testing conditions were not ideal: applicants encountered crowded conditions, poor courtroom acoustics, and non-professional dictators. The examination committee pointed out that the exam was given in an actual courtroom in conditions often encountered by court reporters and that the dictation given was not exceptionally difficult, The examination committee evaluated the applicants on an overall qualitative basis; numerical scoring system was not used. Each applicant identified his paper with an 1,D. number only, thus the name of the applicant and court reporting technique were generally unknown to the evaluation committee. A member of the committeecorrected the transcripts
* Acknowledgement is made of the cooperation of Official Court Reporters Germaine Letoile and Joseph Brown, members of the Court Reporters Examination Committee, and Joseph Romanow of the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts.
-37- noting all errors, and each committee member then reviewed the transcripts and provided a qualitative rating. The committee then reviewed only those applicants who had "good" papers and the c.ommittee decided on "pass" or "no pass". Since this was an open competitive examination, no prescseening except for age qualification was done by the examination committee. If prescreening before testing were completed, the committee would have accepted only about 508 of stenotype applicants. However, most stenotype applicants listed more months of previous training and experience than did the voice writers.
-38- Results of Massachusetts Certified Examination -~ Of the 32 applicants taking the examination, only 22 attempted to transcribe the tests. Of the 17 applicants who submitted transcripts, only 9 applicants, including all 6 voice writers were rated "good."* The official examination committee results show applicants ranked as follows :
I ~1st-VoiceWriter
Passed I 2nd-Voice Writer -3rd-Stenotypist (over 5 yrs. as Court Reporter)
"Good I' 74th-Voice Writer transcript I Sth-Voice Writer
No-Pass I 6th-Voice Writer 7th-Voice Writer I , I 8th-Stenotypist I L9th-s tenotyp is t Screened Out - 10th-32nd-Stenotypists (including one stenomask iD reporter and one short- hand reporter) An unofficial quantitative scoring (similar to scoring used by New York or New Jersey) was completed by the'Administrative Office of the Superior Court. These results indicated that the top seven applicants (including all the
* "GoodIi means that the full evaluation committee would review the transcript further before a final decision was made on lrpassllor "no-pass".
-39- voice writers) exceeded 95% accuracy on the toal examination. b The committee reported that voice writers' readbacks were 1 "good" to."perfect"; however, voice writers took a few seconds lonaer than stenntvni c+c
-40- 3.2.2 Qualification Tests Prepared for the Federal Courts
Or, May 5, 1973, the Federal Judicial Center and Administrative Office of the United States Courts administered the Federal Court Reporters Qualifications Test to 15 appli- cants for a federal court reporter's position in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Four voice writing trainees who reside in Washington, D. c.,voluntarily took the examination after only six weeks in the Training Program, All 15 applicants (4 voice writers and 11 steno- typists) completed the language comprehension test, but only 11--including the four voice writers--submitted transcripts of the performance test (five-part examination). "It is significant to note that four of the top eight were voice writers who had received only six weeks of training prior to the test. (Of the three passing the tests, two were stenotypists and one a voice writer trainee.) These results give further proof of the efficacy of the voice writing technique and its potential for helping to solve transcript delays. 11 4 The Federal Judicial Center report just cited concludes, "Subsequent to our test - and after completion of the Voice Writer training course - all of the trainees passed one of the Federal Judicial Center- developed qualification tests. The significance of these results can best be emphasized by noting that approximately one out of fifty stenotype trainees could be. expected to pass our tests after a minimum of two years of training. 0 5
Federal Judicial Center Progress Report #3 (June 19, 1973, pp. 4-5). Ibid., p.5.
-41- 3.3 Evaluation of Equipment
The MITRE Corporation prepared two Technical Guidance reports, dated 9 November 1972 and 6 February . * 1973, reviewing commercial tape recording systems suitable for multi-track voice writing. (Appendix C) The trainer, Mr. Joseph Gimelli, preferred a twin-track electronic a recording system: therefore, only such tape recording systems were reviewed for selection. h However, courts may prefer to use a four, six, or eight track recording system, and voice writers can readily adopt to such a multi-track recorder if the equipment has the technical features listed in Section 3.4. Three major pieces of equipment were purchased for each voice writer trainee: a twin track tape recorder for use in the court, a microphone mixer to regulate the voice inputs from the participants in the court proceeding, and a two track tape recorder with foot pedal control for trans- cribing the recorded tapes (a separate transcribing unit is recommended so that tapes can be transcribed while the, voice writer is recording other court proceedings: and it also serves as a backup recorder). s The Tandberg 4041-X had been selected for court- room use because it possessed most of the features required. namely, durability, twin-track, separate record and playback heads, separate record and playback controls, speakers, as well as a reputation for reliability. One of the main objectionable features of the machine was the fact that the start-stop button was solenoid operated and, therefore, made a clicking noise. 8 I -42- Shortly before the training commenced, Mr. Gimelii learned that a new Tandberg Model 3341-X was available. This machine has similar features except no internal speakers: and it has a mechanical (silent) start-stop button entirely eliminating machine noise, and was some $75 cheaper than the 4041-X model. Both Mitre Corporation and Mr. Gimelli evaluated the 3341-X Model (Appendix C), The equipment initially purchased was a Tandberg Model 3341-X recorder for recording .^\ testimony and for producing the voice writer’s official record in the’court, a Tandberg Model 1541-F recorder for transcribing tapes, and a Shure Mic-Mixer Model attached to the 3341-X. The Tandberg 3341-X Transcribing unit and the Shure Mic-Mixer worked well during both the training and field evaluation phases. During the training program, however, problems arose with the Tandberg 3341-X Recorder. The following technical problems were reported with the Tandberg 3341-X: 0 All machines were too sensitive. Mr. Gimelli was told that they were set to European microphone settings and had not been changed to American standards. This necessitated ultra-critical setting of the volume control in recording, and overloading of the recorder amplifier was common. or Left or right channel would not record. This was due to various reasons: amplifier became disabled because of overload; damage through shipping; poor contact between machine socket and microphone plug.
-43- Students had frequent readback and monitoring problems. This was attributable entirely to inferior earphones. All were returned and new earphones were supplied. 0 The microphone for Channel 2 was placed too close to the recorder and if they suddenly "snapped" the mode switch m, it overloaded the amperage. This also corrected itself in moments. o As stated, it must be borne in mind that these machines were being operated by persons never before exposed to this type of equipment, and. the machines were being used in a classroom environment. 0. The Beyer microphones were too sensitive for the Model 3341-X, especially with the recorder set to more sensitive European standards. After one month of use in the training program, the Tandberg Model 3341-X was replaced with the Tandberg 4041-X Model. It was concluded the model 3341-X was not reliable enough to withstand continuous use in the court- room. The Tandberg 4041-X worked well during the training program and the field evaluation results indicated that it is an acceptable machine; but, in a few instances it did have some minor technical problems. Courts are advised to test and evaluate other audio recording equipment for use in the courtroom. 6
Selection of a Court Reporting Method for the Oregon District Courts, National Center for State Courts, NCSC R0003, May, 1973.
-44- 3.4 Recommended Equipment Standards
Based on technical recommendation and field evaluation with courts, the equipment selected should contain the following features: 0 Capability of monitoring the actual record on the tape (rather than the input signal) by means cf a separate play-back head following the recording head Multi-channel recording Separate volume controls for both.the record and play-back recorders 0 Visual indicators for each recording channel 0 Devices to prevent accidental erasures 0 Counter for indexing 0 Fast forward and reverse 0. Recording unit with internal speaker or pro- vision for connection to external speakers Three hours of continuous recording per side of magnetic tape e Portability 0 Foot pedal control.for transcribing unit 0. Standard size open reel tapes. .>
CHAPTER IV
FIELD EVALUATION
4.1 Extent of Court Participation
After training, the voice writers were placed in courts in several jurisdictions. In some cases, the voice writers worked along with stenotypists, while in other courts they worked independently. Fourteen voice writers* worked in the following courts:
'0 Municipal Courts, Santa Clara County, California
0 Superior Court, Fulton County, Georgia
0 Criminal District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana
0 District Courts of Massachusetts
0 County Court, Camden, New Jersey
0 District Court, Clackamas County, Oregon
0 District Court, Lane County, Oregon
0 District & Circuit Courts, Multnomah County, Oregon
0 Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania During this field experience, the voice writers worked with individual judges for up to seven weeks, and .reported on various types of proceedings. In order to evaluate the work of the voice writers, and to obtain reactions to this technique, judges, attorneys, court administrators, and court reporters were interviewed in
* Six graduates had other full-time commitments for the period of the two-month field evaluation and were unable to accept a temporary court reporter's position.
-4 6- person or by telephone. Questions posed are shown in c Figure 9. In general, the reactions to the voice writing technique were positive. Individuals who participated in the project manifested strong interest, and offered constructive criticism. One jurisdiction did have major problems with the technique, but this can be attributed largely to a unique situation involving an individual voice writer. In the following paragraphs the responses of the individuals interviewed during the field evaluation are i summarized by jurisdiction. The final section of this chapter discusses the overall court response to the voice writing technique. 1.
.
-47- FIGURE 9
Interview With Judges Concerning The Voice Writer Program
1. Describe the amount and type of contact you had with the I voice writer, in terms of time, types cf cases, and additional functions performed.
P 2. Did you request and review any transcripts and/or listen to tapes recorded by the voice writer? If so, what is your evaluation and how would you compare this system to stenotyping?
I 3. How would you evaluate the general features of the voice writing system [in comparison with stenotyping or just audio]? ,-. a, costs
b. Transcripts: quality, production time required (distinguish between the system and the trainee) c. Courtroom procedures: especially playback feature d. Demeanor and behavior of voice writer e. Noise problems: did the recording in any way disturb you?
f, Reliability of equipment
g. Playback quality: in and out of court; quality of both tracks h, Back up feature of two tracks
4. How would you compare this multi-track voice writing system with a. stenotyping and b. audio only (e.g., just a machine, no court reporter)? 1 5. What was the reaction of lawyers to the voice writing system?
6. Assuming you could hire a voice writer, would you? (This I question refers specifically to the system,) .. .- ..
7. Would you employ the voice writer who was working for YOU?
8. How well do you think the voice writer has trained--botfi technically and in terms of court procedures? 9. What areas of improvement can you think of--additional features, equipment, training, etc.? ..- -48- 4.2 California: Santa Clara County Municipal Court Individuals interviewed:
0 Gerard Kettman, Presiding Judge, Municipal Court, .. San Jose 0 Robert Beresford, Judge, Municipal Court, San Jose 0 Joseph Speciale, Clerk of the Municipal Court, Sari Jose In Santa Clara County, one voice writer worked with several Municipal Court judges, and for a short period with one Superior Court judge. The voice writer recorded a variety of proceedings, over a six week period, including small claims, jury and non- jury trials, preliminary examinations, one juvenile case, and several hearings before a traffic commissioner. . The judges and clerk interviewed about the voice writing technique agreed that the transcripts were at least as good as stenotype transcripts. Judge Beresford had compared several voice writing and stenotype transcripts and stated that there were "numerous inconsequential differences" between them. The Judge did make several suggestions to the voice writer to improve the transcript and to interrupt a court proceeding to clarify a question or statement. In general, Judge Bereseord felt that voice writing might not be a time saver in a court with a high volume of cases, but would be useful in courts with relatively light caseloads where the voice writers would have more time to transcribe their own tapes. He felt that major savings in using the voice writing technique would be in the area of training and the full-the availability of the voice writer in the court.
- 4.9- Judge Beresford listened to the play back of the tapes and declared that the quality was quite good. He suggested that it might be preferable to use the open track for in-court play back, rather than the track with the voice writer's voice. He felt that there was a psychological . factor involved here, in that attorneys, witnesses and jurors did not like to hear the whispering of the voice writcr on the tape. Neither Judge Beresford nor Judge Kettman found c that the presence of a voice writer in the courtroom
caused any disturbance. Neither the voice writer I s speech or the sound of the equipment was obtrusive. Both judges reported that attorneys had expressed some interest in the technique. Judge Beresford noted that the reaction of most attorneys and judges would probably be one of complete indifference. Mr. Speciale, however, had heard favorable comments from several attorneys concerning the quality of the transcripts and the technique itself. Judge Beresford also stated that there would probably be a negqtive reaction from stenotypists, and a more positive response from public officials who are concerned with the costs of operating the courts. There was general agreement that the technical training of the voice writer was good. However, Judge Beresford suggested that additional exposure to courtroom procedures should have been provided. He acknowledged that deficiencies in these areas were rapidly corrected in response to suggestions from the judge to the voice writer. Mr. Speciale stated that the voice writer was well-trained and competent.
-50- mark as a very practical technique." He said that as a court reporting technique it was generally comparable . to stenotype, and he was especially impressed by the I sensitivity of the equipment. ! I I' I P 8 i 1
-51- 4.3 Georgia: Fulton County Superior Court Individuals interviewed: L 0 John S. Langford, Judge -. 0 Sam Phillips McKenzie, Judge 1 0 Jack Thompson, Court Administrator 0 R. L. Shelnutt, Court Reporter I Two voice writers worked with Judges Langford and McKenzie for approximately five weeks on both civil and t criminal cases. The judges were well satisfied with the technique, both in terms of technology and the quality of the transcripts. Judge Langford stated that the transcripts were "well done," although he did note a few minor problems with legal terminology. In general, he felt that the transcripts were comparable to those prepared by a stenotypist. Judges Langford and McXenzie, as well as Mr. Thompson, agreed that the voice writers created no noise or disturbance factors in the courtroom, and that their demeanor was good. However, the court reporter stated that the equipment is very noisy, but does not create a major disturbance in the courtroom. In addition, the court reporter did not see any need for the back up and verification feature of the two track voice writing system. The two judges and the court administrator were all satisfied with the reliability of the equipment, although Mr. Thompson noted the lack of portability as one disadvan- tage of voice writing. Mr. Shelnutt mentioned one situation in which the machinery broke down during a trial. Judge Langford cited a few examples of difficulties that the voice writer had with legal terminology, but said that he saw this as an inevitable occurrence to anyone who is new
I -52- to the courtroom. Similarly, Mr. Thompson suggested while voice writers were technically qualified they needed additional training to court procedures. In general, Judges Langford and McKenzie and 8. Mr. Thompson viewed voice writing as a viable alternative to stenotyping. Mr. Shelnutt, on the other I hand, stated that voice writing is "far inferior to stenotyping. I' 1 I I I
I 4 I 1 I I
-53- 4.4 Louisiana: Criminal District Court, Orleans Parish
Individuals interviewed: 0 Rudolph Becker, Judge, Criminal District Court 0 Charles Ward, Judge, Criminal District Court In New Orleans a voice writer worked for seven weeks with two judges reporting felony and major misdemeanor cases, habeas corpus hearings, parole revocation hearings and prr-trial conferences held in open court. In one case, the voice writer took two days of testimony that lasted until late at night. The judge in that case, Judge Becker, was surprised at the voice writer's ability to continue recording for such an extended period of time. Judge Ward reviewed several of the transcripts prepared by the voice writer and was very pleased with the short time required for transcription and with the high quality of the work. Neither of the judges had an opportunity to use the playback feature in the courtroom: however, one did listen to the tape in chambers, and the other asked the voice writer to repeat a statement made during testimony. In both cases, the judges were satisfied with the playback feature. Judge Ward stated that having the tape enabled him to review testimony without waiting for a transcript. The judges in New Orleans agreed that the demeanor of the voice writer in court was appropriate and that there wexe no noise problems with the equipment or the reporter. Several attorneys had been questioned by the court and had indicated that they were not disturbed by this new technique. In general, the equipment used by the voice writer was reliable, although there was a minor problem with the equipment picking up extraneous noises. b Judge Becker thought that there might be a problem if the I -54- I voice writer was expected'to quickly move from one I courtroom to another, or was asked to record a proceeding in chambers. He stated that it is much easier for steno- I typists to move their equipment. Both judges viewed the voice writer reporter as an acceptable alternative to I the shorthand or stenotype reporter. They felt that the playback feature and the possibility of having a voice writer's tapes transcribed by a typist were valuable I features of this court reporting technique. Judge Becker's.only reservation concerning the 8 employment of a voice writer was based upon the fact that in his court the court reporters also must serve as I'secretary to the judge. Lacking training in shorthand or speedwriting, 'the voice writer could not perform this ! I function. / P I I 1 I 1 I
-55- 4.5 Massachusetts: District Courts of West Newton, Central Middlesex, Eastern Middlesex, East Boston, East Norfolk, Bristol, Southern Middlesex, and Lowell
Individuals interviewed: Franklin N. Flaschner, Chief Justice of District Courts Robert S. Prince, Judge, District Court of East Norfolk Monte Basbas, Judge, District Court of West Newton John Forte, Judge, Central Middlesex District Court Milton Silva, Judge, 2nd District Cowt of Bristol James Harris, Assistant Court Administrator, District Courts of Massachusetts r Albert Burns, First Assistant Clerk, Third District Court of Eastern Middlesex John Ligotti, Clerk, District Court of East Boston The District Courts of Massachusetts are becoming courts of record. Therefore these courts are evaluating the various methods of court reporting to determine the one that is most appropriate for implementation. Of the various jurisdictions in which voice writers were placed for their field experience, the District Courts of Massachusetts have exhibited the greatest interest in conducting a rigorous evaluation of this court reporting technique. Three full-time voice writers worked in the District Courts of Massachusetts for over two months, handling a variety of cases and rotating among several different courts. In interviews with judges, clerks and court administrators
-56- in these courts, unanimous agreement was found that voice writing is an effective technique for court reporting, a and that it is at least equal to stenotyping or the use oaf audio equipment. The comparative evaluation of voice 1 writing, stenotype, and audio equipment that is being conducted in Massachusetts will continue through early I Fall, 1973, and the results will be published by the District Courts. I Some of the judges have already compared these techniques and discussed the results with us. Judge I Forte of Central Middlesex District Court had a voice writer, stenotypist, and audio equipment record several I . trials, and later reviewed and compared the transcripts from two proceedings... In both cases, the stenotypist was an official court reporter with several years experience I who employed an excellent typist as a transcriber. Judge Forte stated that he was extremely surprised at the number of errors made by the stenotypist. In one transcript, the stenotypist made 66 errors, as compared with 27 by the I voice writer; in the second proceeding both reporting systems made 35 errors, It should be noted that Judge 4 Forte did not regard as important the errors made by either reporter, he thought the quality of the voice I writer's transcript was equal to or better than that of the stenotypist. I A comparison was also made of the time required to produce transcripts by a stenotypist and a voice writer. In one instance, Judge Forte noted that a s specific voice writing student's tping skills were a 1 major factor in slowing the process of producing a transcript.
-57- He regarded that as a minor problem, indicating that variance in the quality of transcripts was due to variations in individual ability. However, he noted that the voice writers submitted all their transcripts before the stenotypists. Another aspect of the Massachusetts evaluation involved having a voice writer's tape transcribed by another typist. Using the open track of courtroom proceedings, the typist transcribed part of a trial that was later reviewed by Judge Forte. In seven pages of transcript, there was only one minor error. Among those judges who had not conducted a comparative analysis of the various court reporting techniques, there was agreement that the voice writers' transcripts were excellent and were produced promptly. There was consensus that the presence of the voice writer did not disturb the courtroom, and that the demeanor of the voice writers was appropriate. One I judge stated that stenotypists are sometimes noisier than voice writers, I Several individuals who were interviewed noted the advantage of having a second track on the voice I writer's .tape that can be used for play back in the courtroom and for verification after the proceeding m has been transcribed, The value of the second track was particularly evident in one trial inwhich a witness I testified in Chinese with the aid of an interpreter.
-58- b . The tape of the witness and translator was then available for later verification by a second translator shouId there I be any questions about the testimony. All of the judges interviewed stated that, based I on their initial experience with the voice writing technique, they would recommend its use in the District Courts of I Massachusetts. They did note, however, a few minor technical problems. A few judges and administrators were not fully I satisfied with the equipment; the microphones were too sensitive to extraneous noises in the courtroom, and the I equipment lacked portability. Moreover, one judge questioned the practice of dictating without full punctuation, and noted that this might cause problems in transcribing. I There were also suggestions concerning the training of voice writers- The first was that punctuation skills I.should be stressed in the training sessions. This would enable the voice writers to record tapes that could be more P easily and accurately transcribed. It was also suggested that instruction might be shortened to provide more time for - I practice recording sessions in court. Finally, it was recommended that the students receive additional training d in the operation of the equipment, to enable them to handle emergencies. I The overall response of the District Courts of Massachusetts to the voice writing technique was favorable- Those who worked with voice writers stated that the system 1 was more reliable, and less expensive, than stenotypists, and that it enabled judges and attorneys to review the 1 record more easily- I -59- b- 4.6 New Jersey: Camden County Court 0 Individuals interviewed: 0 John F. Gerry, Judge, Camden County Court 0 Michael P. Sarubbi, Trial Court Administrator, I Court of Camden County. I Written evaluations of the voice writing project were received from the office of the New Jersey Court Administrator, I including comments from Judge John F. Gerry and Mr. Michael P. Sarubbi. The voice writer was to remain in Judge Gerry's court I for three weeks: however, the project was abruptly ended when the voice writer withdrew after only four days of I work. The explanations given by the judqe, court administra- tor and voice writer of the problems that arose differ to I some extent, and the circumstances remain somewhat obscure. In his written evaluation of the situation, Judge Gerry I) stated that he had had extensive discussions with the voice writer about the difficulties he was encountering. I The voice writer had mentioned to the judge that the training provided was inadequate in that it did not expose the students I to actual courtroom experience. 'However, in the voice writer's letter of resignation he stated, I!. . . my decision does not stem from what I would consider to be \ I a deficiency in my training, but rather from a set of unfortunate circumstances, both personal and environmental, I which prevent me from carrying this assignment through to completion. I Another inconsistency concerns the reaction of some court employees to the voice writer. The voice writer I mentioned "suspicious looks,'I "ca~sticremarks, 'I and "an
-60- overall cool reception which stemmed from a basic hostility toward voice reporting." Judge Gerry, on the I other hand I was under the impression that the voice writer "received a warm and cordial welcome from all concerned ...I' The voice writer emphasized that the reception he received I from the judge and court administrator was, in fact, warm and cordial. I Judge Gerry wrote that the voice writer had told him that there were major problems vith the equipment. The 1 judge had reportedly been told that the microphones were not placed in the proper positions, and thus picked up 1 extraneous noise in the courtroom and sometimes did not record important statements or testimony. The judge's evaluation mentioned the lack of port- I ability of the equipment. The court was also apparently bothered the wires that had to be extended across the I courtroom floor. The equipment problems were similar to those experi- enced by other judges who considered them to be minor and easily correctable. Unfortunately, the Camden County I Court did not have the opportunity to evaluate.any trans- cripts. I It is important to recognize that certain problems will arise that can be solved only through further develop- I ment of the selection and training processes of voice writers, greater knowledge and appreciation of new technol- I ogies by court personnel, and continued improvements in the equipment used by voice writers. A comparison of the reasons given and the problems 1 discussed by the judge and the voice miter does not clarify I the precipitating factors which resulted in the breakdown
-61- C of the project. It does appear, however, that the voice writer withdrew from the Camden Court because of a combi- I nation of personal problems,. inadequate preparation, and difficulties in the court itself. The situation was not I typical; and does not by itself, permit a valid evaluation I of the voice writing technique. I I 1. I. ? - 1 i I I I 1 I b I I -62- I
4.7 Oregon: Multnomah, Clackamas and Lane Counties I Individuals interviewed:
0 William Beckett, Presiding Judge, Lane County 1. District Court a John Cox, Judge Pro Tem, Lane County District I Court 0 Robert Mulvey, Presiding Judge, Clackamas County I District Court 0 Richard Unis , Presiding Judge , Mu1tnoma h County I District Court 0 Robert Redding , Judge , Multnomah County District Court 1, ' 0 William Richardson, Judge, Multnomah County District I. Court o Alfred Sulmonetti, Judge, Multnomah County Circuit P Court 0 Donald Lauder , Judge Pro Tem, Multnomah County District Court I a Wesley Carter, Court Administrator, Multnomah County District Court I-. I 0 Adele Johnson, Assistant to the State Court Administrator I The Circuit Courts of Oregon presently employ shorthand or stenotype reporters. The District Courts of the State of I ,Oregon are preparing to become courts of record. The various methods of court reporting are therefore being evaluated by I the State Court Administrator and the District Courts. Because of this situation, there was widespread interest in I
I -63- I voice writing as one option available to the district 1 courts. The evaluations made by the Oregon judges appeared to be quite objective. Most judges had previously worked with steaotypists and audio equipment. The voice writers I in Oregon worked for seven weeks in civil and criminal cases. I The individuals interviewed were unanimously satisfied with the demeanor and professionalism of the voice writers. t I There was general agreement that having a voice writer present in the courtroom did not cause any disturbance; I there were no major problems with the equipment. Judges Mulvey and Cox reported that initially they were slightly I aware of the presence of the voice writer, but soon became used to the technique and were not bothered by the reporter. I Several judges expressed surprise that the voice writer was so unobtrusive. Judges Beckett and Cox each experienced one technical problem with the recording equipment, but in both cases they were able to rely on the backup track for a record of the proceeding until equipment adjustments were made. There was general agreement that the transcripts were of high quality and that the time required for their preparation was satisfactory. Judge Beckett stated that he had reviewed 30 pages of a transcript, and had found only four errors, all spelling errors. Judge Redding noted that the preparation of transcripts by a voice writer is probably less time-consuming because one step-that of reading a stenotypist's notes into a recorder or by a note-reader-is eliminated.
-64- Several of the judges interviewed did not feel that they had enough information available to them to evaluate the voice writing technique in terms of costs. However, Judges Redding and Unis noted that by eliminating the step mentioned above, voice writing could probably reduce the costs of court reporting. Voice writing was considered less expensive than stenotype reporting. Although it is more expensive than audio recording, the quality of the end result was viewed as counter- balancing the added expense. Two important features of the voice writing technique are the ability of the court reporter to replay testimony and to resxt to a two-track system for verification and for back-up in case of mechanical difficulties. Several of the judges interviewed commented that they were impressed by these features and by the quality of the sound when the tracks were replayed. Although it is possible to play back either the actual recording of court proceedings or the voice writer's dictation, Judge Redding suggested that it is probably better to replay the open track in order to hear the inflection of the speaker and any other voices or comments in the courtroom. The quality of the open track was evaluated as quite good. In one instance, a judge stated that there were initial problems with the voice writer's track being inaudible, but this was soon corrected.
-65- I
In addition to'being used in the.courtroom, the recorded tapes can also be used to check the accuracy of transcripts. If a passage of transcript is questioned, it is possible to replay the tape for clarification. All-of the judges who rated the voice writing system said it is as good as, or better than, stenotype or audio equipment. A few said that although they saw no difference between stenotype and voice writing reporting, they would be inclined to recommend the adoption of voice writing. One judge took this positiorl, in part, because he felt that stenotypists are often "arrogant" and 'linsolent"and that it might be easier to work with voice writers. The one dissenting view in the comparison of the various court reporting tech- niques was that of the Assistant to the State Court Administrator, who felt that it would be more efficient to use audio equipment in some District Courts where there is a high volume of cases and a low volume of appeals. Attorneys indicated that they were not disturbed by any noise or by the equipment in the courtroom. In Multnomah County, attorneys and jurors were asked for their reactions to the voice writer in the courtrooms. There was apparently no problem with noise, and very little interest in the technique itself. Judge Redding speculated that attorneys will' probably gain interest in the system when they are affected by it more directly. Several suggestions-weremade for improving the training of voice writers as well as the technique itself. _- There was general agreement that, while the voice writers were competent in the technical aspects of recording, more practical experience and exposure to actual courtroom situations would be valuable. This type of experience would give the voice writers more confidence and a greater knowledge of legal terminology and court procedures.
-66- C -Other suggestions were that methods for security of 1 equipment and tapes should be developed, and that a digital dial be attached to the tape recorder that would be visible in the courtroom. This last suggestion, if implemented, would permit the judge and attorneys to make note of the location on the tape of a particular statement or other I item of interest in a proceeding. I I 1 1 P 1 1 I I c 1 4.8 Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division
Individuals interviewed :
0 Judge Greenberg, Court Administrator
0 Larry Polansky, Deputy Court Administrator
A voice writer recorded in the court of Judge Charles P. Mirachi, Jr., for one day which included two non-jury criminal trials. The official court reporter who was assigned to the courtroom had over 8 years experience in the court. Judge Greenberg, the Court Administrator, requested transcripts from both the voice writer and the stenotypist. Judge Greenberg and Mr. Polansky agreed that the transcript produced by the voice writer was comparable to that of the stenotypist. Each reporter was able to pick up a few words or phrases that were missed by the other. There were a lew instances where the differences in the trans- cripts were clearly the result of the stenotypist's long experience, rather than basic individual ability or technique. And, in every instance, the differences were minor. The voice writer's presence and activities did not disturb the judge, lawyers, or court personnel; the demeanor of the voice writer was regarded as appropriate. Although both 'Mr. Polansky and Judge Greenberg agreed that the quality of the audio recordings for play back was quite good, they emphasized that their major concern was with the quality of the transcripts produced. They noted that the
-68- corroboration provided by preservation of courtroom sounds on the open track was a major advantage of voice writing over stenotype. In general, those who worked with the voice writer in Philadelphia were pleased with the technique and rated it as practical. Their only suggestion for improving the system is to develop more portable equipment.
-69- 6 ' 4.9 Summary of Field Evaluation The 14 voice writers who participated in the field evaluation phase of this project recorded a wide variety of civil and criminal proceedings. The cases ranged from minor traffic matters to capital cases, With the exceptions of Philadelphia and Camden, the voice writers were in the 5 various courts for six or seven weeks. Among judges who had an opportunity to review a transcripts produced by voice writers, there was unanimous agreement that the quality and preparation time of the 1 transcripts produced by'the voicg writers were equal to or better than those of the stenotypists. Wherever there , were discrepancies between two transcripts they were usually minor and could often be accounted for by the additional experience of the stenotypist, Many judges were well- satisfied with the high quality of the voice writers' transcripts. The judges also agreed that the demeanor of the voice writers was appropriate and that the technique caused no disturbance in the courtroom. Some observers indicated that they were initially aware of a whispering sound, but that they soon became accustomed to it and were no longer aware. Attorneys present were apparently not at all 1 disturbed by the voice writer, and several actually expressed approval of the technique. Several lawyers stated that the quality of transcripts was excellent, and they liked the fact that the voice writer's tapes could be used to verify a transcript. Approximately two-thirds of the judges interviewed i had had an opportunity'to use the play back feature of the voice writing technique. Of these, a majority felt that it
c -7 0- I is very valuable. Play back can either be used by actually replaying the tape so that it is heard in the courtroom, or- by having the voice writer listen to his or her tape and I repeating the statement in question to the court. A few of the judges who listened to the tape said that there was I some difficulty understanding the recorded dictation. However, when the voice writer repeated a statement, the B process was equivalent to that of the stenotypist reading from tiis notes. Judges strongly approved of the multi-track recording; in particular the ability.to verify the voice writer's official record by listening to the actual voices of the participants on a separate track of the tape. The two I'recordings--the voice writer's record and the voices of the participants--provide a. back up for each other. If there is difficulty in understanding either the voice writer's voice or the track of the courtroom activity, it is still possible to use the other track of the tape to prepare a transcript. With stenotype, however, if the stenotypist's notes are illegible or damaged, there is no way of getting a transcript of the proceedings. Although the judges were unanimous in their spproval of this back up feature, several stenotypists rated it as useless. In most cases there were no major mechanical problems with the voice writers' equipment. It is difficult at this time to assess the cost factors that will come into play if the voice writing technique is introduced in the courts. In most juris- dictions, the technique is new, and salary and trans- cription rates have yet to be established. The major cost savings provided by voice writing are in the area of training and personnel utilization. Considerably less time is required to train 2 voice writer than a stenotypist. Moreover, since the voice written tape can be transcribed by a competent secretary, it is
-71- possible to maximize the utilization of the voice writer in the courtroom. Additional analysis and evaluation is required to assess the actual cost savings of voice writing. The greatest number of criticisms and suggestions for improvements were in the area of training. Although most judges agreed that the voice writers were well trained in the actual technique of voice writing, there were three areas where it was felt additional training should be provided : e technical problems related to the equipment 0 knowledge of judicial environments and proceedings e actual in-court practice. These suggestions are all vzlid and should be incorporated in any future training of voice writers. Another suggestion, which relates to the equipment rather than the training, is that the machines should be more portable. Court reporters are often asked to take proceedings in a judge's chambers and should be able to move all the necessary equipment with a minimum of time and effort. One possibil- ity for resolving this problem would be to use battery- operated recording equipment. Finally, it was suggested that better placement of multi-directional and uni-direc- tional microphones in the courtroom could improve the quality of the recordings and the transcripts. The overall assessment of the voice writing technique by those who worked with it was strongly favorable. The quality of the transcripts provided was at least as good as stenotype transcripts. Most judges indicated that if they had an opportunity to employ a voice writer in the future, they would be inclined to do so. The results of .
-72- this field evaluation are encouraging, and indicate that the new technique of recording judicial procedures is .a viable alternative to those methods currently being used.
'. '.
I -73- I CHAPTER V
Comparison of Multi-Track Voice Writing
to Other Techniques
5.1 Comparison of Multi-Track Voice Writing to Shorthand or Stenotype
A basic characteristic common to the voice writer and stenographic court reporting techniques is that a competent court reporter must be in the courtroom to take the official verbatim record to insure a record of high quality. The basic difference between the two systems is that: 0 The stenotypist or shorthand reporter relies on manual dexterity and the use of stenographic script to prepare notes by mechanical machine or by manual longhand e The voice writer reporter relies on dictation ability, recording the dictation on one track of a magnetic tape with actual court proceedinqs on separate tracks of the -same tape for verification. A number of issues are involved in comparing court reporting techniques. This discussion reviews the more critical problems concerning court reporting services. The priorities a court places upon these issues remain for the court to determine based upon court requirements and policies.
-74- 5.1.1 Quality of the Record
Availability of Qualified Court Reporters
Many courts find it difficult to locate competent court reporters for either full-time or temporary service. The primary reason is the limited availability of stenotype or shorthand reporters with necessary reporting proficiency and court knowledge. This limited availability can, in part, be attributed to the length of time required to train stenotypists. Most new stenotypists require two or more years just to attain the speed and accuracy required to produce a high quality verbatim record and additional time in court to fmiliarize themselves with court nomenclature and . procedures. The multi-track voice writers require less than five months (three to four months of classroom training and several weeks of courtroom exposure).
Proficiency Levels of Court Reporters In those states where a certified court reporter examination is given, the licensing body usually requires proficiency levels of 175 words per minute for single voice (jury charge, opening statements) and 200 words per minute for multiple-voice court testimony (with 95% accuracy required). These levels are considered difficult for stenotypists to reach and maintain over a prolonged time period, although very competent stenotypists can reach higher speeds.
-75- The'voice writers were tested at speeas of 200 words per minute for single-voice testimony and 220 words per minute for multiple-voice testimony (See Chapter 111). Voice writers can maintain these speeds over a prolonged time period and can dictate at speeds over 250 words per minute .
Verification of Court Reporter's Official Record All court reporters make errors. Unfortunately, in most courts today there is no way to validate the court reporter's notes. The court and counsel are dependent upon what the stenotypist or shorthand reporter heard and recorded. In some courts, an audio recording is made in addition to the c%xgrapher notes as a back up for the court reporter and the court. Because the voice writing technique preserves both the court reporter's official record of proceedings and the actual testimony on a single tape, the system allows for simultaneous review of the court reporter's official record and the courtroom testimony.
-76- I 5.1.2 Delay in Transcript Production . Transcription Process I Stenotypists or shorthand reporters produce a transcript in a three step process: I 0 Recording the proceedings by either manual shorthand or stenotype machine I 0 Translating the notes back to English usually by dictating into a recorder (a few stenotype I reporters employ a professional note reader to transcribe the stenotype not=s) i 0 Typing the transcript to produce the official record. I The voice writer reporter produces a transcript in a two step process: 0 Recording the proceeding by verbatim dictation into an t electronic machine o Typing the transcript from the voice writer's I dictation. The second step in the stenotypist procedure is eliminated. 1 If an audio record is acceptable as the official record, the record is available for immediate review, if I desired.
I Court Control and Responsibility of Transcript Preparation
In some courts, the record of proceedings is under I the private control of the stenotpist court reporter. Since the stenotypist must be relied upon for the transcript, I the record cannot be reviewed until an official transcript
-77- is prepared by the court reporter. In most jurisdictions, whoever requests copies of the official record must arrange with the court reporter for the delivery of a final transcript copy, The court reporter controls and regulates the production of the transcript: unless the court exerts effective controls7 the reporter decides when it will be delivered; he can charge premium rates if immediate (daily) copy is requested; he hires and controls trans- cribers employed; he determines the productions rates, etc. Another problem in transcript preparation is the availability of a court reporter to prepare notes for transcription. If a stenotypist is sick, on vacation, or has changed his residence it may be difficult or impossible for another stenotypist or shorthand reporter to'prepare a verbatim transcript of the proceeding. The multi-track voice writing technique provides an audio record of the reporter s verbatim dictation which allows for immediate review of the record, if permitted. It allows for the "interchangeability" of personnel to produce the official transcript. If desired, the court may be able to better regulate the entire transcription process. In other words, the court can control the priorities among official records, the production time, the quality standards, the rate structure, etc. It is not necessary for the voice writer to be available during the transcription process.
~ ' Miles N. Ruthberg & Ernest H. Short, Administration of Court Reporting in the State Courts, NCSC Publication No, WOOO1, February, 1973.
-78- 5.. 1.3 cost
I No itemized cost comparisons between stenotyping and voice writing were made by any of the courts during the field evaluation. A review of the capabilities and I procedures between the two techniques indicates several cost savings using the voice writer technique. When daily copy is required, usually two or more stenotypists must be available to alternate (usually at 1/2 to 1 hour intervals) taking notes in court and preparing notes for transcription by typists. The voice writer can remain full time in court taking direct I’ testimony and change the magnetic tape during a court recess for immediate transcription by by typists. The reduction in the transcript process from three steps used by,the stenotypists to two steps by the voice writer will reduce the amount of non-court time the court reporter must have for the preparation of transcripts during court hours. I With the acceptance of the voice writing technique by the courts, more individuals I will be interested in entering the court reporting field--primarily because of the shorter training period (smaller time invest- ment in training) and a higher probability of reaching court reporting standards--which will help alleviate the shortage of competent court reporters and help to raise productivity and performance standards of the court reporting profession.
-79- 0 The audio tape record of the proceeding can be Is made available for review by lawyers or judges. The tape record can be dtlplicated onto another I reel or cassette at a fraction of the cost of a stenotypist's transcript. For example, a stenotypist's transcript might cost $185 for a I trial of three hours duration (assuming 50 pages per hour of testimony and a $1.25 page rate) I compared with $10 to $15 for a duplicated tape or cassette (cost of magnetic tape and pro-rated I share of duplicating equipment and personnel costs). I 8 A stenotype machine retails for approximately $250. Usually a stenotypist court reporter I desires a back up to cover for possible machine breakdown. The cost of a dictation machine is an additional expense for the stenotypist. 1, Stenotype equipment costs are approximately $600-$700. A variety of audio recording equipment I exists. An adequate installation of equipment would include two tape recorders, microphone mixers, I microphones, and connecting extension cords which would cost approximately $800-$1,000. If the cost I of the equipment and maintenance is amortized over a few years, the expense of equipment is slightly I lower for the stenotypist. Whether the court or the court reporter purchases and maintains the I equipment, equipment costs are a minor cost.factor in any court reporting service. I
-8 0- o Voice writing offers the court a viable alternative to stenotyping, thereby creating an element of competition between these systems.. Such competition 8 should generate increased proficiency, higher standards, and lower costs. I
-81- 5.1.4 Court Procedures and Decorum
The stenotype technique is generally a noiseless and unobtrusive court reporting system. (Several judges have commented that some stenotype machines, if not properly maintained, are noisy and that some stenotypists improperly positioned tend to distract jurors if the jurors can observe the stenotypist's movements. The introduction of audio and stenomask recording systems has aroused concern for possible distractions due tu additional noises or appearance of equipment. Voice writer reporters were extensively observed by judges, lawyers, and court administrators. There was practically unanimous agreement that the voice writing system in no manner disrupted the trial or distracted any participants; the demeanor and professionalism of the voice writer were appropriate and no court procedures needed to be altered to accommodate this system.
-82- 5.1.5 Equipment
The stenotype machine has proven to be a reliable 8 and portable machine. It is a specialized typing machine used by the stenotypist to type a combination of symbols representing phonetic sounds on a fixed keyboard. It is 0 mechanical; and because there are noelectronic components breakdowns seldom occur, a The voice writer reporter, in contrast, is dependent upon an electronic recording machine with greater chance of a technical problems. Most audio recording equipment available from manufacturers is not specifically designed for the courts, therefore technical problems may be expected. The field evaluation of the voice writing technique demonstrated some minor technical problems arising from the quality and reliability of the equipment. Nearly all judges reported these technical problems to be minor and correctable without causing any extended halt in the court proceedings.
-83- 5.1.6 Translation of Non-English Testimony k When a witness or litigant does not speak English, an interpreter is required. Unless the stenotypist is fluent in the foreign language, there is 3 no official record, and therefore no verification, of the translator's communication in the foreign language to the participant or of the statements made by the b , foreign speaking participant. Statements made by a voice writer reporter are I also dictated only in the English equivalent of the foreign speaking participant's statements. However, si -all statements made by the translator and the foreign- speaking participant-can be recorded on separate tracks ? of the tape, If questions arise concerning the validity of the translations, the court has available for review a record of both the non-English statements and the translation. Because the non-English speaking testimony is on Track 2 (the track containing courtroom voices) it is available to resolve any discrepancies in translation.
... ,-
-84- 5.2. Comparison of Multi-Track Voice Writing to Audio Recording
A single or multi-track audio recording system produces records on magnetic tape from sounds picked up by microphones strategically placed in the courtroom. Several state court systems use personnel to monitor the recording and to take appropriate notes on a log sheet (spellings, index entries) and typists then transcribe the testimony from the tape recording. The National Shorthand Reporters Association contends that audio recording is markedly inferior to stenotype reporting because of: 8 0 Machine breakdowns 0 Poor quality of audio recordings 0 Improper identification of speakers 0 Poor quality of transcripts 0 Extra time needed to produce transcripts Generally; these reports conclude that a "live" court reporter is necessary to insure high quality and speedier production of transcripts. The voice writing system combines the use of a multi-track recording system with a "live" court reporter who has professional reporting skills. Rather than a "logger" who merely monitors the audio record, a voice writer monitors and concurrently prepares an official audio record of the proceeding on tape. The voice writercan more adequately provide for the following services than audio recording systems:
8 W. W. Tremaine, Handbook on Electrical Recording, Eugene, Oregon, National Shorthand Reporters Association, January, 1965. .
-85- 0 Can pick up inaudible or muinbled testimony
1. and, if necessary, requjre the speaker to repeat the statement 0 Can read back testimony during the trial 0 Can prepare high quality dictation for direct transcription 0 Can place on the record non-verbal actions 0. Can accurately identify speakers In choosing between these two options (voice writer versus audio recording), a court must consider the difference in: 0 Cost (voice writer would receive a higher salary than a "logger")
0. Quality of audio recording and transcripts
0 Time required for transcripts The voice writer can provide a court reporting service with a higher quality audio record and faster production of transcripts, but at higher costs than an unsupported audio recording system. Courts for special or "limited" jurisdiction, which have a high volume of filings and court proceedings, but a low rate of appeal or request for transcripts, have tended to use audio recording systems. The voice writing system can be viewed as a refinement of the multi-track audio recording system. If the court knows which type of proceedings have a high probability of requiring a transcript, voice writers can be "plugged" into an audio system to insure the highest possible quality of official record. In other words, a jurisdiction including several judges can install multi- track audio equipment supplemented by a small pool of voice writers who are assigned to cover "probable appeal" type of proceedings.
,
-87- CHAPTER VI Conclusions and Recommendations
._ Based on a six month evaluation of multi-track voice writing, it is concluded that: 0 Multi-track voice writing is a practical court reporting technique. 0 The graduates of this voice writing training program attained better court reporting examination scores than most graduates of stenotype schools. 0 After a few months of experience in courts, voice writers are comparable in ability to experienced stenotype court reporters. 0 Voice writers can be trained in less than six months compared with a minimum of 24 months for stenotypists. 0. The transcripts produced by voice writers are equivalent to, or better than, transcripts prepared by experienced stenotype court reporters. - 0 Voice writing permits the court to control more easily the official record and production of transcripts. 0 Voice writing provides the court with the alternative of two types of official record of proceedings: audio record or transcript. e Voice writers should be equipped with reliable and portable tape recording systems.
-88- Based oh an evaluation of this particular voice writer training program, it is concluded that:
Performance I
0 Voice writers can be trained within six months to become competent court reporters. 0 Trainees achieved high levels of proficiency on several state and federal reporter examinations. 0 Trainees received strongly favorable comments from judges who observed voice writer reporting in the courtroom. 0 The recording equipment selected met equipment standards, but additional evaluation and testing of other audio equipment should be done.
Curriculum
0 Trainees should complete a minimum of twelve weeks of classroom instruction. o Trainees should be required to practice under actual courtroom conditions for a minimum of four weeks. 0 Trainees should be instructed by persons who have experience in recording courtroom proceedings and who have experience with the voice writing technique, 0 Qualified applicants for a voice writer training program should possess strong language skills. .
-8 9- Compared with stenotype'or shorthand court reporting the multi-track voice writer technique provides: 0 Greater availability of court reporters time in the courtroom 0 Fewer steps in transcript preparation 0 Availability of independent verification of the court reporter's record 0 Court control of the transcript process (costs, quality, and time) 0, Potentially lower manpower and transcription costs 0 Capability for recording non-English speaking participants 0 Greater frequency of equipment problems caused by electrcnic malfunctions. Presently, many statutes and court policies do not pennit courts to take advantage of the voice writing technique. Competence in court reporting should be deternined by the final product, the official record,= by the techniques used to record proceedings. Statutes and court rules should be altered: 0 to change qualification exams from certified shorthand reporter examinations to certified court reporter examinations 0 To permit any competent court reporter, regardless of reporting technique, to become an official court reporter 0 To raise required proficiency levels of court reporters.
-90- I 1 0 APPENDIX A Syllabus 1 Content of Formal Instruction 1 Washington, D.C. Program P # I 1 4 I 16 APPENDIX A Syllabus Content Of Formal Instruction -.. Washington, D.C. Program
Syllabus: Session -Time (hours) 1 Purpose and Explanation 1/11 Explanation and Demonstration of Equipment 1 1/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA
1. . Tape 180-1) 1 General Discussion 1/4
2 Reporter Behavior in Court 114 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 180-1)l 1/2 Enunciation Skill 1/4 Typing Practice and Test 1
3 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 180-5) with interchange with other trainees 1 3/4 General Discussion: Maintaining Equipment; Dictation Techniques at Fast Speeds 1 1/4 4 Use of Transcriber Recorder Transcription of Dictation Typing Skill
5 Demonstration and Practice of Mic-Mixer 3/4 Dictation and Readback (NSFlA Tape 190-1)1 3/4 Review Dictation and Readback Techniques 1/4
6 Dictation and Readback .l/2 Test - using NSRA 180-1 Literary 140 wpm and Jury Charge 160 wpm 3/4 Discuss!-on of Trainee Dictation 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 180-1)1
7 ;?SRA Tape Legal 1/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 200-412 1/4 Discussion of Machine Operation 1/4
-92- Appendix (continued) Session -Time (hours) 8 Dictation (NSRA Tape 210-2) 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 180-511 1/2 Discussion’ of Dictation Technique 1/4 Court Reporting Procedures 112
9 Transcription of Previous Dictations 2 1/4 10 Discussion of Terminology and Machines 1/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 210-211 Dictation and Transcribe (NSRA Tape 230-2) 1 1/2
11 Dictation and Readback (NSRA ‘Tape 230-2) 1 1/2 Discussion and Practice Machine Operation 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 190-3) 3/4
’ 12 Dictation (NSRA Tape 230-2) 1/2 Discussion on. Reporting Techniques 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 230-2)1 1/2 13 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 220-2)l 3/4 Transcribing (NSRA Tape Legal-2) 1/2 Review of Medical Terms 1/2 14 Transcription of Dictation (NSRA Tape 220-2) 3 Review of Punctuation and Grammar 1 Typing Formats 1/2
15 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 190-1)2 1/2 16. Dictation (NSRA Tape 200-4) 1/4 Dictation; and Readback (NSRA Tape 190-1)l 1/2 (NSRA Tape 230-1) 1/2
17 Dictation (NSRA Tape 230-2) e 1/2 Discussion on Courtroom Techniques and. Editing Transcripts 1 1/4 Transcription 1
18 Discussion: Stenotyping and Voice Writing 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 210-2) 1/2 Discussion: Court Reporter Errors- Comprehension, Punctuation 1/4 Dictation (NSR9 Tape 260-1) 1/2 Dictation for Transcriptions (NSRA Tape Legal I) 1/2
-93- Appendix (continued) Session -Time (hours) 19 Transcription of Dictation (NSRA Tape Legal I) 3 Review Transcripts and Listen to Another Student's Dictation 1 1/2
20 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 260-1)l 1/4 Discussion on Editing Transcripts 1/4 Dictation of Legal Terms 1/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 230-2)1 1/2
21 Set-up of Recording Machines 1 Dictation and Readback 1 3/4
22 General Discussion of Machines 3/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 210-2) 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 260-2)l 1/4
23 Dictation (NSRA Tape 260-1, 260-2) 1 1/4 Four-Voice and Two-Voice Dictation (Live) 1 112 24 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 260-1) 3/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 200-4) 1/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape Medical-1 ) 1 Three-Voice Dictation (Live) 1/2
25 Dictation (NSRA Tape 230-1) 1/4 Discussion - Spelling and Punctuation, Use of Earphones 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 230-1)2 1/4 26 Dictation (NSRA Tape 240-1) 3/4 Dictation (Live - Single-Voice) 1 1/2 Dictation (NSRA Tape 240-1) 1/2 27 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 250-1)2 Discussion of Tests 1/4 Dictation (Live) 1/2 28 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 250-1)l Dictation (Live - Single-Voice) 1/4 Logging Procedure (NSRA Tape 180-5 Q & A) 1/4 Court Procedures - Forms 1/4 Dictation (NSRA Tape 230-1) 1/2
-94- Appendix (continued) Session -Time (hours) 29 Dictation (NSRA Tape 260-21 1 1/4 Dictation and Readback (NSb Tape 230-2)1 ..Discussion of Court Reporting (Court Reporter in Supreme Court of New York) 3/4
30 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 230-2)1 1/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape
, Legal 2) 3/4 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 260-2) 1/2 Dictation -Test (NSRA Tape 220-21) 1/4 31 Dictation (NSRA Tape 260-2) 3/4 Dictation Tes,t (NSRA Tape 220-2) 1/4 Discussion - Medical Terms, Court Procedures, Transcription Format for Q ti A 1 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 230-2) 1/4 32 Transcription -Test of Dictation (NSRA Tape 230-2) 3 Transcription of Live Dictation 2
33 Discussion: Federal Court Reporters Examination; Practice Methods and Habits for Better Proficiency 3 1/4 34 Discussion: Dictation Using Tran- Scriber Recorder 1/2 Dictation and Readback (Live - 3-Voice) 1 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 260-1) 1 Dictation (Live - From Authentic Tran- script) 1/2 35 Discussion: State Court Reporters Examination and Final Evaluation Program 1/2 Discussion: Production of Daily Copy Transcripts 1/2 Discussion: Proper Enunciation - Singular vs. Plural, Tense, Dictating Rhythrr, 1/4 Dictation (Live - Single-Voice) 1 1/2 36 Dictation and Readback (Live - Two Voice} 2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 230-111
-95- Appendix (continued) Session -Time (hours) 33 Dictation and Readback (MSRA Tape 260-2) 3/4 Dictation and Readback (Live - Two Voice) 3/4 .. Dictation and Readback (Nsra Tape 260-2) 3/4
38 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 260-211 1/2 Review: Verbal Comprehension, Spelling, Grammar, and Readback 3/4 Dictation and Readback (Live - Single and Two-Voice) 3/4
39 Dictation (Live - Two-Voice) 1 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 250-1)l 3/4
40 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 250-111 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 220-211 1/2 41 Dictation and Readbadk (Live - Single- Voice 1 1 1/2 Discussion: Examination Procedure 1
42 Dictation and Readback (NSRA Tape 240-111 Dictation (Live - Four-Voice) 1 Discussion: Transcript Formats 1/4 Dictation and Readback (Live - Single- Voice) 1 43 Dictation (Live - Single-Voice) 1/2 Dictation and Readback (NSRA 230-3) 1 Dictation (Live - Two-Voice) 1/2 Dictation (NSRA Tape 230-3) 1/2 Dictation (Live - Technical Terms - Single Voice) 1/4 45 Discussion: General Review - Logging; Transcripts; Spelling .3
FINAL EXAMINATIONS 20
I
-96- APPENDIX B Certified Voice Writer Court Reporters I
APPENDIX B Certified Voice Writer Court Reporters ti (in alphabetical order) II Previous Work I Name & Address Education Experience Catron, Cheryl T. B. A. University 51 Viltshire Dr. Administrative E Avondale Estates, Georgia Assistant 30003 1 Chadinha, Michael G. Some College Military Service 30 Eighteenth St. Fall River, Massachusetts s 02723 Costello, Cathy M. Some College Secretary 1235 Moore Wy. m Ontario, Oregon 97914 Curtis, Anita J. High School Administrative 2300 Good Hope Rd., S.E. Assistant a510 Federal Govern- Washington, D. C. ment 20020 Duval, Coralie N. M. A. Housewife 5044 S. W. Miles Portland, Oregon 97219 Hicks, Janie T. B. A. Student 1364 Woodland Hills Dr., N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30324 McLelland, Alex Some College Salesman 101 Surrey Cir. #4 Chamblee, Georgia 30341 McLelland, Mary High School Secretary to 101 Surrey Cir. W4 Judge Chamblee, Georgia 30341
-97- Appendix (continued) Previqus Work Name c Address Education Experience Miller, Dava A. B. A. Teacher-Typing 438 Ridge Rd., #6 and Shorthand Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 Miller, Lawrence R. B. A. Teacher 438 Ridge Rd., #6 Greenbelt, Maryland 20770 Moran, Francis X. Some College News Reporter 103 Darrow St. and Probation Quincy, Massachusetts Officer 02169 Platnick, Linda M. M. A. Housewife 12815 Point Pleasant Dr. Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Reilly, Robert A. A. A. Transcriber for 301 G St., S.W., +I201 Court Reporters Washington, D. C. 20024 Robertson, Dorothy M. B. A. Administrative 25 Rowe St. Assistant-Courts Newton, Massachusetts 02166 Romanow, Gerald C. B. A. Docket Clerk 55 Wadsworth Ave. Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Sellars, Eileen M. A. Secretary-Univer- 565 Ansley Forest Dr., N.E. sity tl Atlanta, Georgia 30324 Swan, Laury Some College Community Worker Route 1, Box 1082 Gresham, Oregon 97030
-98- Appendix (continued) Previous Wcrk Name & Address Education Experience Walbert, Debra L. Some College. Transcriber 7625 S.W. Wilson Ave. Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Walsh, Peggy Bo Bo A. Newspaper 9667 S.W. Canyon Rd. Reporter , Portland, Oregon Teacher 97225 Wobbrock, Peggy J. Bo A. Teacher 760 S.W. Vista Ave., #24 Portland, Oregon 97205
-991
: . I
1 8 I I
i APPENDIX C 1 Mitre Corporation Technical Reports THE MITRE CORPORATION WESTGATE RESEARCH PARK McLEAN. VIRGINIA 22101 (703) 893-3500
9 November 1972 D38-62 (TGC~~)
National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 1100 Vermont Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20530
Attention: Mr. Mmc'A. Nerenstone Research Administration Division
Subject: Audio Project Support (MITRE Technical Guidance - Project 8160) Reference: (a) LEAA INST-RAD memo from Kalin to Nerenstone dated 11 October 1972, endorsed from Nerenstone to Holden (MITRE) for action, subject: Audio Project Support
'4 (b) LEAA Grant HI 72-031, subject: Test of GimeUi System for Training Court Reporters
Gentlemen:
The Reference (a> memo requests support of a specialist from the MITRE Corporation to review the technical aspects of commercial tape recorders in order to determine the availability of suitable audio recorders for use on the Reference (b) training project. The work has been completed on the basis of personal contact with suppliers and technicians in the Washington, D. C. &rea. This letter is a report of the findings.
The principal conclusion of the review is that there are recorders suitable for the training project and that there are models that require little or no physical modification to be directly usable in the courtroom. On the other hand, if portability and battery operation in the field are considered paramount requirements then thare is little available, and ' serious modification of a commercial recorder would be required.
-100-, Y I
Mr. .Marc A. Nerenstone -2- 9 November 1972 f 038-62 (TGL-11) I It is recommended that the training project be co'nfigured around operation solely within the courtroom, where power is available, to avoid the need for battery operation. This allows commercially avail- 1 able recorders to be used without major modification. If it is felt necessary, for the purposes of the training project, also to include operation in the field where battery operation is required, it is I recommended that this be done with special recorders adapted for the . purpose. n Yours very truly, i &ZL William E. Holden Department Head e Law Enforcement Analysis WEH:WAE:jgw
1, Attachment 1 I I I I I
-101- Y D38-52 (TGL-11) 9 November 1972
. A REVIE11 OF' AUDIO ICCOXEEPS FOR COURT EPORTING
Reference: EAA Grant NI 72-031: A Test of the Girnelli System for *Training Court Reporters
This is a report of the findings of a review of comercia1 tape recorders suitable for use on the reference project. The work bras undertaken by the HITIIE CorpoFation at the request of the National Institute of LaEnforcement ar,=! Crhinal. Justice to suppoz't a review of proposed plans under the ruference project. The report contains a statement of .the purpose of the wcrk, a listing of the desirable recorder charzcteristics, a revit:,i of zvailable commercial recor4ers and an identification of the more suitable units. It also contains some suggestions of technical factors to be considered in the design recorder specifically for this type of court re2orting. ,.of a Purpose of Review
ne pu.r.?ose of the rsvicti sas to iSa;ltif-- cci;Lr;ercid. recorders that WCA!~~s~~?ear KO be siiitr?b:e fo- lis8 1s traini;:,? xachincs in the test af the Ginel5 systen sf ~rd-ahgcxrt recortex. It wzs rwt intcr.dcd,tc mke ~i selection sf 2 partLcuLar mckine bur: rather to establish the availabili?] of silitzXe caehines so that a. !..ate? ju5ge- ment could be mde by the llatlonal institute regarding the machine actually selected hy the project personnel. The work was to be con- 8 ducted independently of the training project. . .. 1 Recorder, Reaxirements In order to select recorde-rs for iilclusion in the review and to set a basis for differentiating arncng the recorl ers se ected, it is I necessary first to establish the SES~.Crequirements of the Gimelli system as relzted to rccoyder chartca:aristics. The features listed in Table I are those deternined to be of nost inportance to the project. I They constitare a summary of the needs expressed during conversations with I4r. Stanley Kalin of NILLCJ, XP. Ernest Short of the National Center for State Courts, k. C.F:nelli cf the court roporting project I and Mr. iiobert Kramer, technical conslrltant to Mr. Ginelli. A recorder that exhibits all of these fca?u-r.s \iould be most acceptable as a can- didata fcr the project. On .the mher hand, since it is unlikely that I any one recorder ~ouldmeet all the recuirements, he, more impxtant characteristics are hignlightod. i
b I -102- I
TABLE I
REQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS
Weight 10 Ibs. (intended for portzble operation in the field)
Dimension Consistent with portability
8. Heads Separate record and playback required (for simltaneous record and playback)
Dual channel, 1/4 track (for forward and reverse recording) .- .*. Spc cd" 1-7/8 ips operation
Fast fcm.zni and revzzse
1 Reel 1/4" x 1200' tape (at least 5" reel)
Revolution Counter 4-digit desired
Power Battery operation desirable (for field operation)
4 Control Remot e s top/s tart capability required .- I * Indicates mandatory requiremnts
-103- ..
Review Available Recorders
The investigation of commercial recorders against the baseline of requirements, conducted over a peTiod of about b;o creeks, involved a review of technical specifications su?plied by leading manufacturers of tape decks:: and recorders;::: and, where possible, an observation of the recorders themelves. It was conducted pricarily by pzrsonal contact in the Washington, D. C. area and by telephone contact else- where. It included both foreign and domestic nanufacturers as well as different models frcm each. While it is inconceivable that the entire population of rczorders could be covered in rhe time availdle, the results were felt to be sufficiently conprehenslvc to show that .suitable recorders are available ana that no one recorder possesses all of the desired characteristics.
Table I1 gives the pertinent characteristics for the recorders that meet enough of the require3ents to merit fmther consideration. a.Other recorders such as the Akai 4000D, the Fer-ograph, and the Realistic 9999, and various other m.odels of the liste_d manufacturers are deficient i.r. enough of the c-itical charxttrLsties io cbvlate their inclusion. Fcr each recorder ixxludec! in t5?e list thn, cost significant deficiency is und2:rlir.ed As an e:0.2:::;ile, for the Telex . Han,nacord LO24 the wigfit cf 47 pour,cs is tiell Zmve the vaitle cm- sidered appro?riate for a ?o?t=ble nachire. Zo:. tho Soq 353-3 the lack of a rcnote control capability readers the mchlne unsuitable -.1 without mdification. - The machines considered nost suitable are listed on the left. The Tandberg 4000X is moderately piliced wnen conpared with the rest I and meets, to a reasonable extent, all of the rquireaents except that of battery operatian for field use. Regardiag the latter, since most of the operation will probzbly take place in the courtrccm, the merits of burdening all the recorders with a battery capability for I the occasiocal field use is questionable.
The Telex Bagnacord 1024 is by far the most ruggedly built and I by implication is possijly the most reliable. Cperationally it would be good for the purpose but it is far too heavy 70 be considered pcr- table and is significantly mope expensive than thz rest. The lack of I a revolution (foatage) counter is a drawback that can easily be remedied.
I ...n Tape deck - a tape recorder without the electronics necessary to cpernte a loudspeaker. $:.A Tape recorder - a complete mechanisn, with housing, containing all . input/output electronics for interface with nicrophones and loud- speaker.
-104- f C .l 1 n cs 0 1
.. 2 Fc. - 0 rl C. *n - .. .
:: 0 P F I 0
.I 5 z x PZ I 00
z z 0 0
DC I . -. '. -105- 4- . ' I' . The Uher 9500 is similar to the Tandberg 4000X in characteristics and there is not a lot to differentiate the two. The Uher is about $60 more expensive. The Uher 4400 is fundamentally different from the others in a nurber of important respects. First, it has no head that can be used for simultaneous playbzck. The machine would have to be modified to include this capability and whether or not this can be accomplished successfully has not been d?ternined, Countering this very negative point, however, are the light weight and battery operation features, both ideal characteristics for a recorder that hzs to be moved around a lot or operated in the field Tenote from coaventional power sources. "his is a significant tradeoff that hzs to be ansxered by those familia? with the scheduled use of the recorder. Fron a technicai point of vieir, the concept of modifying a recorder in as fundanental a way as adding a new playback head is a serious step that shoul2 be ccnsidered only iI , there is no other alternative to successful corngletion of the project. The remaining entries in the tale are all usable for the reporting purposc but zm less desirable for me cr ncr'e Fezsons. SoEe OF the rccoxlers are rnc,~eruggcd1.y desi;;ncG thm cthcs and better ?kle to withstad the start-stap *use or' no,mal oF3rztic2 but iz is nct Emsi'cle to establish an acceptaie i-dzti-ie relizbility vzlix fcr this :yp= 3f aechanisn 4.Ltho-c;: ex :ensive tests. Tine ffx1 conclusFcn is, thorefore, that there are audio tape reconters 03 the comErci21 aaScet that we reasonably suited to the coun reporting project needs and that there IS a tradeoff of characteristics that can be made tiependicg OA the importace attached to the various project needs. Recorder Desi-gn Cons,idcrations In the course of the study it became apparent that while there ilre recorders on the market that are reasonably suited to the court reporTing project, there is no recorder that seems ideal for the purpose. This leads to the conclusion that in the event of success on the training project, a task to design a tape recorder specifically fop court repcrt- ing might at least be considered. Vith this in zind it vas felt impcrtat to document a techfiical point bearing on recorder design that became a?parent during the review. It relates to the ccncept or' closed-micrc;hoce recording from an "instantaneous" playback of the open rnicro?hone recczdiE.;. With this technique the court reporter is faced with a slight instrurzxatica delay of the playback sounds from the headphones when compared with ths real sounds froa the courtroom and. the visible cocrtrcom scene. if *'ae reszrte? can hear both sounds !x is faced with dual sourc,?s thar manifest therselves as an echo if tSe delcy is snall, or as tras distinct sowccs , e .g. txc ses- spate persons talking, if the delay is large. The visual impact is k-tt of a lack of "lip-sync" sinilar to the all-too-ftniliar and annoying cs?- of-sync movie. If the record and Flayback head gaps are close together c 4 .': _. the delay effect is snall sild, when tried in practice, the scheme has been declared to work. On the othez hand, there is no indication of the extent to w'nich the reporter was forcd to strcggle against the distraction, whether or LiOt he was even aware of the problem. The point here is that the spacinz of the head gap is not independent of the application and the effect of the spcing should be assessed I if any design action is conteqlated. m I I I I I I -107- . I ** THE MKRE CCRPORATION WESTGATE RESEARCH PARK McLEAN, VIRGINIA 22101 (703) 8934500 6 February 1973 D38-119 (TGL-25 ) I National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice 1 Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 1100 Vermont Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20530 Attcntic;;: Hr. Elarc A. ?!zrezs.tme Research Administration Division Subj ect : Audio Project Support (MITRE Technical Guiaance - Project 8160) Reference: (a) MITRE TGL-11 dated 9 November 1972, sa!e subject (b) LEAA Grant NI 72-031, subject: Test of Gimelli I. System for Training Court Re?orters Gentlemen: D The reference (a) letter reported on a survey of tqe recorde2s suitable for use on the reference b) court reporter Training project. Contractor personnel subsequently made a tentative decision to use I the Tatidberg 4000 series recorder, which was one of the recorders covered by the study. This decision was recently revised to Cali for a TanCberg 3300 series recorder, which was not coverzd by the I study. With the approval of Hr. Stan Kalin of the Xational Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, \$;e were requested by Yr. Michael Greenwood of the National Cer.ter for State Cmrts, the refer- I ence-(>) grantee, to aid the Tandberg 33CO series reccrder to our study and to report on its suitability for the training project. We have daze this,and this is 2 report zf our fiadizgs. I . The attachment is a t&le showing the key features of the 4000 and 3300 series recorders. When read in the conrext of the purposes described in the reference (a) letter, it can be seen that there is I very little difference between the two. The most significant differ- ences are bwer price and weight for the 3300. I It is our observation that the 3300 series recorder is essentially an updated version of the 4000 series rather than an alternative genus. It has the same performance an3 reliability and works essentially the same way. It incorporates nodlfisd cosmetic features that have little -108- i I -1 b Marc A. 'Nerenstone , RAD 2 6 February 1973 D38-119 (EL-25) effect on its performance as a court recorder and is equipped with a more noise-free stop-start switch which is an advantage. It does not include the power amplifiers and output speakers which are included in' I the 4000 recorders but which are not required. This probably accounts in part for the lower price of the 3300. I It is our conclusion that there is nothing 'io suggest that the Tcn25erg 3300 sezles reccrder is any less appropriate for the training project than the 4000 series. 'I Very truly yours, 4 ' Willim E, golden - Department Head R Law Enforcement Analysis mB Attachment 'I cc: Mr . Elichael Greenwood National Center for State Courts -8 I n. I I -109- .- D38-119 (TGL-25 1 6 February 1973 i) RECORDER CHARACTERISTICS I Tandberg 4000X Tandberg 3300 Configuration Recorder Deck Weight 23 Ibs. 20 Ibs. Dimension ( WxHxD) 15-1/2"~12-7/16" 15- 3/4"~16-1/8" x6" x7" Heads Erase, Rec, Plbk, Erase, Rec, Plbk, Bias Bias Speeds 1-7/8, 3-3/4, 1-7/8, 3-3/49 7-1/2 ips 7-1/2 ips Reel 7" 7" Fast Forward/Reverse Yes Yes Revolution Counter 4-dig it 4-digit Re liabi li ty Excellent for, hone/ Excellent for ho3e/ lab recorder lab recorder ' List..Price $470 $399 Note: Frequency response, flutter and wow, crosstalk, harmonic distortion are the same. Siqnal-to-noise ratio for 33CG - is listed at 4cib better but this is probably true only at the higher speed. The audio level meter? (VU meters) are larger and easier to read on the 3300. -110-