| Home | About Us | Contact Us | About the publisher |
| Nigerian Law | Bar Associations | Law Offices | Law Practices | Law Students | Profiles | Consumers | Photo News | News and Articles | Downloads |
Sourcing for Court Reporter's Equipment for Nigerian Courts
Sourcing for the best court reporting equipment can be tasking. Without adequate information, one may choose the cheapest or the most convenient and eventually pay dearly for it. It is therefore important to have elementary idea of how each type of equipment works, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances under which it will be used.
The Stenograph machine: Traditionally, Court reporters use stenograph machines that enable them to type at speeds of up to 225 words a minute. The average person usually speaks 160 to 180 words a minute. The stenograph machines have a syllable-based system of 24 keys that spells words phonetically, the way they sound, rather than how they are actually spelled. Stenographers, commonly known as court reporters, use a keyboard with only 25 keys (there are about 100 on a standard computer keyboard) that account for just 13 consonants and 4 vowels.
Videotape recording: With the advent of technology, some courts started to videotape proceedings instead of relying on traditional court reporters. This process involves recording both audio and video of proceedings using video cameras. For example, Washington State first permitted video courtrooms in 1988 the reason was to simplify efforts by Attorneys and litigants to get a record of their trial to a higher court. In Spokane, Washington, three courtrooms used video while other courtrooms rely on court reporters, who record testimony and legal arguments on a stenographic machine.
The long, slow process of making transcripts from a videotape is one of the clearest disadvantages of Spokane's camera-equipped courtrooms. Four years later, the state's Supreme Court changed its mind, ruling that every appeal must have a written transcript. They decided it was too cumbersome for people to review a trial by moving back and forth through a videotape. They also found out that it takes about three times as long to produce 100 pages of transcript from watching videotape as it takes a person working from court reporter's notes. The worst part was background noise and "inaudibles".
Tape Recording with Voice Recognition: Court proceedings may also be recorded by sophisticated tape recording and Voice-recognition software. The process involves recording the proceedings on tape and using Voice-recognition (VR) computer software to convert the recording to text. Reporters have trouble imagining a VR computer, especially because the VR software recognizes only English (phonetics) accent, voice inflections, and deflection. This problem faced a recorder in a particular assignment – unravelling a web of Hebrew and Japanese accents during a software dispute in Israel. In fact, he says, “you need the human filter to get into the mind of the witness and to replicate his testimony" One expensive VR system, for instance, tends to not pick up short words, like "not". Of course, a word like ‘not’ is very important in court proceedings. There is a big difference between, ‘I did not see him shoot him, and ‘I did see him shoot him.”
The bottom line is that videotapes produce a fair share of "inaudible" - sections where the reporters find they cannot tell what is being said on tape. That often happens during sidebars - moments when attorneys confer with the judge. Attempts to replace court reporters with audio or video tapes have also resulted in a few disasters when the equipment malfunctioned; it is usually late in the day to notice this. A tape of a secret hearing related to the Oklahoma City bombing was later found to be blank when it was unsealed. The hearing was closed to the press and public, and an audio tape was sealed by the court when the hearing finished. When an order to have the record unsealed was obtained, the tape, the only record of the hearing, was blank.
Comparing performance: Opinions differ over whether video courtrooms, tape recordings with VR or traditional Stenographers produce the best transcripts. While some in the field thought videos, more sophisticated recording devices and computers would eventually do away with the need for court reporters, experts say just the opposite is true. Those devices have been used to enhance what court reporters do and have made them even more indispensable. Computers allow judges and attorneys to read exactly what is being put into the transcript as it is entered by the court reporter. Furthermore, a good court reporter controls the room, something an audio tape cannot do. A court reporter can ask someone to speak up, stop people from talking over each other, or ask that something be spelled out to ensure all the information is accurate. Tape recorders record noise. A court reporter records speech. What do you do with a video or audio tape? You have to transcribe it. It does not type itself.
Court reporters concede that they do sometimes make mistakes, but they insist that theirs is still the most reliable system. They point out that a machine cannot distinguish between testimony and background noise, nor can it ask for clarification when a person fails to speak clearly or uses obscure or specialized terminology.
Modern Court Reporting: Court reporters remain a human link of dexterity and intelligence, impossible to supplant with mere machines. Court reporters fall into one of two categories: voice-writers and stenographers. Voice-writers, using a microphone-equipped mask, repeat everything spoken in a courtroom onto an audio tape, which they then use to produce a typed transcript. Stenographers take down testimony in a phonetic shorthand using a 22-key machine; technology exists that later turns that shorthand into English using the stenographer's personal dictionary and a specialized computer.
In the United States, the court reporters have mastered a system called real-time reporting. Real-time uses computer software to instantly translate stenographic machine shorthand into English, which is then relayed to computer screens in front of judges and, sometimes, attorneys. The translation software was originally developed to ease the task of creating readable transcripts from a reporter's notes. However, reporters now are using it to do something they say no machine can do: provide instant transcripts.
What will work best in Nigeria? Experience has no substitute. The decision on what will work best in Nigeria in based on personal experience; having appeared before various states High Courts - Kano, Jigawa, Niger, Kaduna, Plateau, Nassarawa, Edo, Anambra, and Rivers) and the Court of Appeal - and seeing some of the equipment used in depositions and courts in California.
Video or Audio with VR software will not work because of our peculiar style of English. Our accent, which differs from state to state and from one ethnic group to another, will utterly confuse the computer. Since our local software writers have not yet come up with local VR software, it will be disastrous to use VR in our courts, no matter how convenient it may seem. The Stenograph machine will also not work unless there is a determination to train Stenographers. In line with modern practice, and taking into cognizance Nigeria's peculiar circumstance, I recommend the Stenograph machine. However, if the Federal and States Judiciary are not ready to train Stenographers, acquiring the equipment will be another wasteful and futile exercise.
Emeka Maduewesi, Esq.
