125874NCJRS.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • ·1 ~':I·I'- - ;, J "" " ,-" ,,- r, ", r, I, • ", ,-, ! e;i~ ~fi1 1i: - .--- {) .. ~jJ/ ~ m .. I _ VIDEOTAPED TRIAL RECORDS Evaluation and Guide by William E. Hewitt Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number sn 87-06D-B-055 National Center for State Courts Afinal report conducted pursuant to a grant to the National Center/or State Courts from the State Justice Institute 125874 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly .as recei~e? from the person or organization originating it. Points of vIew or opInions stat~d in this document are those of the authors and do. not nec~ssan Y represent the official position or policies of Ihe NatIonal InstItute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material in mi crofiche only has been granted by National Center for State Courts to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis sion of the copyright owner. Copyright ©1990 by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-099-6 NCSC Publication No, R-117 Library of Congress Cataloging-in.Publication Data Hewitt, William E. Videotaped trial records: evaluation and guide / by William E. Hewitt. p. cm. - (NCSC publication; no. R-1l7) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-89656-099-6 1. Video tapes in courtroom proceedings--Dnited States. 1. Title. n. Series: Publication (National Center for State Courts) ; no. R-1l7 KF8725.H49 1990 347.73'13-dc20 [347.30713] 90-6043 CIP This report was developed under grant number sn 87-06D-B-055 from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the ofP.cial position or policies of the State Justice Institute. ' . '.. " It may well be that the courts will some day ~dopt a recent mechanical innovation and that we shall have "talking movies" of trials which will make possible an almost complete reproduction of the trial so that the judge can consider it at his leisure. - JUDGE JEROME FRANK Law and the Modern Mind (1930). iii Video Recording Evaluation and Guidebook Development Project Advisory Committee Honorable Randall T. Shepard, Chair Mr. Robert L. Doss, Jr. Chief Justice Director Supreme Court of Indiana Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts Honorable Peter Ciolino Assignment Judge Honorable Rosselle Pekelis New Jersey Superior Court Judge Washington State Court of Appeals Honorable Candace Cooper Judge Mr. Jeffrey M. Arnold Los Angeles County Superior Court Administrative Director Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Project Consultants Dr. Anne Graffam Walker Dr. David A. Saari Forensic Linguist Professor, Judicial Administration Falls Church, Virginia The American University School of Public Affairs Ex Officio Mr. David Green Mr. Jerome E. Miller Jefferson Audio-Video Systems, Inc. Past President Louisville, Kentucky National Shorthand Reporters Association v .4'?=;};:;--"~";'T""'''"'''·~<'''''··' """' '" ", ···'"ri;'::"'·<""i"''''' 'I (t ll'(J/,l(J of Conte'hls:>~\. '\1 (~~~J}j"",.",,,,,;.,,.,,, ... ,,;"~,"_JJ:}~!':',Zl ji Page List of Figures ...... ...... ....... .......... ............................. ....... .............. ...... ........ xii List of Tables ............................................................................................... xiii Acknowledglnents ............................. ....... ............. .......... ...... ... .... ......... ...... xv Preface .......................................... :............................................................... xix Introduction ................................................................................................. xxi Chapter 1. History of Video Recording and the Nature of the Equipment Used in the Study Sites .................................................... 3 History of Video Recording ............................................................... 3 EarLy ProbLems in Kentucky ........................................................... 4 Expansion and Improvement in Kentucky ...................................... 4 Institutionalization of Video Recording in Kentucky ...................... 5 Expansion to Other States ............................................................ 5 Equipment and How it Works ............................................................ 6 Recording System ................. .... .............. ......................................... 6 PLayback Equipment ....................................................................... 8 Other Features ................................................................................ 8 Other Vendors ........................... ..................... ......... ........................ 9 Notes...................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Methods and Evidence ...................................................................... 15 Attorney Survey ............................................................................... 15 Response Rate and Characteristics ofRespondents ..................... .. 16 Highlights of the Survey Responses ............................................... 18 Interviews ........................................................................................... 23 vii VIDEOTAPED TRIAL RECORDS Page Review of Sample Videotapes by Judges and Lawyers .................. 24 Limitations of the Study Method and Cautions About Interpretation .................................................. 25 Summary ............................................................................................. 25 Notes ...................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 3. The Project Study Sites: Four States and Six Courts......................... 31 Trial Courts: Jurisdiction, Caseload, and Organization ................. 31 State Judicial System Administration ............................................... 34 Agency Behind Implementation of Video Recording ..................... 35 The Appellate Context in the Project Study Sites ...... ..................... 36 Organization ... ........ ...... .... ................. ......... ............ ............... .... ..... 37 Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... 37 Case load and Workload ................................................................. 37 Attitudes of the Appellate Judges ........... ......... ................................ 41 The System of Court Reporting in the Sites ..................................... 41 Kentucky ......................................................................................... 41 Michigan ......................................................................................... 42 North Carolina ........................................................... ..................... 43 Washington ..................................................................................... 43 Summary ............................................................................................. 43 Notes ...................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 4. Assessment of Video Recording on Ten Evaluation Criteria ........... 49 Faithfulness (Accuracy) of the Record ............................................. 49 Faithfulness v. Accuracy................................................................. 50 Findings .......................................................................................... 52 QUALITY OF RECORDING ............................................................ 52 FAITHFULNESS OF TRANSCRIPTS ............................................. 54 Ease of Review: Videoiaped Records and Appellate Review......... 54 Kentucky's Reasonsfor Preferring Use of the Videotape as the Record for Appeal........................................ 54 Kentucky's Policy-What Its Critics Say........................................ 55 The Response by Court Officials in Kentucky ................................ 57 Summary oflvIichigan' s Policy and Approach to Appellate Review of Videotaped Trial Records ....................... 57 viii Contents Page SummaJY of the Policy Issues Regarding the Use of Videotape as the Recordfor Appellate Review....................... 59 Expense ................................................................................................ 59 Kentucky's Statewide Budgetfor Court Reporting and the Video Recording Project, 1984-88 ............................. 60 Comparative Costs for Equipment and Operation of Video Recording and Traditional Court Reporting in the Trial Courts .................................................. 60 COURT REPORTER SALARY AND BENEFITS ........................... 62 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR COURT REPORTER REPLACEMENTS ....................................................................... 62 IN-COURT VIDEO CLERK SALARY AND BENEFITS ............... 62 RECORDS STAFF SALARY AND BENEFITS .............................. 63 EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................... 63 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CONTRACT ................................ 64 VIDEOTAPES ................................................................................... 64 OFFICE SPACE................................................................................