DOCSLIB.ORG

Ernest H. Short Nancy A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ernest H. Short Nancy A 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Or Lawyer Spr. 2000
    OREGONOREGON LAWYERLAWYER SPRING 2000 UNIVERSITY OF OREGON SCHOOL OF LAW ALUMNI NEWSLETTER CONTENTS DEAN’S MESSAGE 2 GARY’S FAREWELL 3 STUDENT PROFILE 4 GIVE AND TAKE 5 SLIPERY SLOPES 6 COMMONS DEDICATION 7 CAUSE FOR ALARM 8 FACULTY PROFILES 12 LETTERS FROM LVIV 15 Morse Commons: CLASS NOTES 16 Building on Principles LAW & ENTREPRENEURSHIP 22 Dean’s Message Rip Van Winkle and Law School Future When Rip Van Winkle awoke from his twenty-five five of his six most recent major cases had been re- year sleep, his world had changed mightily. Most of us solved by one form or other of alternative dispute are so busy working away that the world changes before resolution. In my day, ADR was never mentioned in a our eyes, often without our minds recording the law school classroom. And, of course, my field of changes. The world of law practice and legal education American Indian Law was not even offered in the has certainly changed over the last twenty-five years, not curriculum of a to mention forty or fifty or even five or ten years. single American law When I realized that my law school class was school. holding our thirty-fifth reunion this spring, the magni- During the ‘90s tude of the passage of years and of those changes there has been a shocked me. Legal education in the year 2000 is very recognition of the different than it was back when I was a first year student rapidity of change in 1962. It is very different than in the 1950’s or even the and an increasing 1980’s and ‘90s.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Appellate Almanac
    O REG OREGON APPELLATE O N A ALMANAC PPELL VOLUME 2 2007 A TE A LM A N A C VO L U U.S. Fish and Wildlife ME 2 – 2007 A Publication of the Appellate Practice Section of the Oregon State Bar Walter J. Ledesma, Editor OrEGON AppEllaTE AlmaNac VOLUME 2 2007 Robert Gilbo Mount Bachelor from the Sunriver Resort Golf Course CONTENTS WELCOME from Walter J. Ledesma ............................................................4 DEDICATION (R. William Linden, Jr.) ............................................................6 OREGON SUPREME COURT CALENDAR ................................10 SUPREME COURT DIARY ........................................................13 Survey of United States Supreme Court .................................7 Decisions of the October 2005 Term ......................................7 Cases on Review from the Ninth Circuit.................................22 Cases on Review from Oregon and Washington ........................................................24 2007 Oregon Appellate Almanac SUPREME COURT PROFILES Walt Edmonds, Judge,Court of Appeals .................................28 Judge Rex Armstrong,Oregon Court of Appeals .....................3 Rick Haselton, Presiding Judge, Department , Oregon Court of Appeals ................................33 Presiding Judge Landau,Oregon Court of Appeals ..................36 Judge Virginia Linder,Oregon Court of Appeals .....................38 Judge Darleen Ortega,Oregon Court of Appeals .....................40 Judge David Schuman,Oregon Court of Appeals ....................42 Judge
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Appellate Almanac Oregon Appellate Almanac
    OREGON APPELLATE ALMANAC OREGON APPELLATE OREGON APPELLATE ALMANAC Volume 1 2006 Volume 1 – 2006 Volume A Publication of the Appellate Practice Section of the Oregon State Bar Keith M. Garza and Lora E. Keenan, Editors OREGON APPELLATE ALMANAC Volume I 2006 CONTENTS Welcome (The Editors) ......................................................7 Dedication (The Honorable Wallace P. Carson, Jr.) ........... 11 2005 -- The Year in Review Ninth Circuit (Tom Sondag) ............................17 Oregon Supreme Court (Keith Garza) .............24 Oregon Court of Appeals (Robert Udziela) ..... 51 2005 Criminal Case Roundup (Walter Ledesma) .............................................64 2006 Oregon Appellate Almanac 1 2005 Judicial Profiles (The Supreme Court (reprinted from the Mutlnomah Lawyer)) The Honorable Wallace P. Carson, Jr. .............. 77 The Honorable W. Michael Gillette ................. 81 The Honorable Robert D. Durham .................. 84 The Honorable R. William Riggs ..................... 87 The Honorable Paul J. De Muniz .....................89 The Honorable Thomas A. Balmer................... 91 The Honorable Rives Kistler ............................94 Enactments and Promulgations 2005 Legislation of Interest to Appellate Practitioners (James Nass) ...............99 2006 ORAP Committee (Lora E. Keenan and Keith Garza) ............................................115 Heavy Lifting The Oregon Court of Appeals: 2005 Report (Hon. David Brewer) .................119 A Precis of the State’s Appellate Court Practice (Hon. Hardy
    [Show full text]