My grandmother was an amazing court reporter. She could keep up better than any of her colleagues. Judges loved her. The ADAs loved her. The DA was her best friend for 40 years. Other districts tried to poach her, offering to pay for her to move closer to them.
@SnailHatan poaching as far as jobs go is more about the act of offering someone who's already employed in the same position a similar job with your company and less about the amount of money. It's considered bad form and even a bit rude to the company that the person currently works for. Now if that person was between jobs anyway and was offered the same position for more money or went looking for a new place to work that's not poaching. It's the act of trying to get an employee of another company to switch to yours that makes it poaching. When you work in industries where individual employees are taken a bit more seriously you find out what's up.
UK. I was on a jury and we got dismissed because of the cutting of an audio recording. Clearly the lawyers had agreed a certain amount of the recording was just pure fact, no wishy washy bits that could be interpreted. Unfortunately, the court gave us an unredacted copy for the deliberation room, which included some audio that was open to debate that neither side wanted us to consider. When they realised it, we got dismissed and it went to retrial.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the court itself would have to pay for the retrial (basically, in the event of a mistrial caused by either party or the court, the party responsible has to pay for the new trial).
Stories like this just reinforce my belief that the judicial system is broken. If you don't want the jury to interpret the evidence, then you don't want them to actually make an informed decision.
@@edbangor9163 The mere fact that you aren't allowed to know about law in the first place shows that well enough. If you are called for jury duty, and in prepartion phase ask some specific questions, they will just say that you can't be on that jury and they will find somebody else.
@@SchilaniI dont think that holds true least in the US. There were two lawyers on Trump's NY jury. So maybe its specific types of lawyers not lawyers in general. i.e. a former prosecuter likely cant serve
@@kitwhite2640 I was actually more referring to laymen knowing specific things, like the right to basically ignore everything on the table and give an innocent verdict, just because they don't want to see somebody behind bars, even tho the person is definitely guilty. Also, bigger cases are probably treated differently anyway. And I wouldn't put it past them, to specifically try to find people, that wanted to find Trump guilty. That's just how politics works.
Court reporting is insanely hard. I went to school for it. It’s basically another language and we have to get it accurate for the record so interrupting here and there when needed is absolutely necessary for your case, but all the time is definitely a problem. We were always told by our professors, other working court reporters, lawyers as well as a judge to do what you need to to get the most accurate record because without you there is no accurate record. Recordings can be mumbled, cut out, things missed etc so interrupting once in a blue moon when you need to get it accurate when it’s hard as fuck to take down and people are talking fast is needed, but all the time is not okay and should probably get a different court reporter to take down that deposition for that trial.
Locally they finally moved (or made an effort to) to typing them instead of handwriting them. I guarantee handwriting, I would never keep up. But typing, I can. Good ADAs would require typing as permissible.
Reporters for deposition are free lance. They drive up in.their 85 car dressed like they are going in their yard. Bad attitude too. Probably not all but it was the one I got.
@@mlmielke what are you....court reporters have not handwritten the record since the invention of the typewriter. and these days they don't even use a regular typewriter. so i'm confused. what do you mean??
Yea it’s a special expensive machine where you are looking like you are typing but it’s called writing. It is indeed another language when I was in school I learned how to write ladies and gentlemen of the jury in one stroke which means all my fingers on the keys at the same time came out to that phrase. It basically looks like a cat walked across a keyboard. We understand it, but it is extremely hard. They are not just learning to type fast or right fast. It is not English. It is not anything like that. It is absolutely insane and what a skill I have so much respect for the people who do that, but the ones that I know make very, very, very good money, but they went through a lot to get there. You can work for the court, an agency or be free lance.
@@luigirock96 well I would assume that if he cut out those bits where they clarified for the reporter, it means he was probably super clear but the reporter was having issues. Come on now. He cut the video, he would have been able to tell if he was the one speaking unclear or his witness. That obviously wasn’t the case. I know you are probably intelligent enough to figure that out but pretend that him being unclear is the only option, like he would give an unclear video to the jury to watch 😂 That can happen. My grandmother did it for a while and there was some people that couldn’t keep up with more than two words at a time. They were super good at writing down fast but if they got more than a word behind they wouldn’t remember the rest. It takes fast writing and a good memory while multitasking. The reporter was probably new.
You need to think though: this is a deposition room with at least half to 3/ of all the trial participants there. Often depo rooms are similar in size to the actual courtroom itself. So, if he's speaking at a normal volume and cadence to how he normally speaks in court (which, most likely he is, since he also KNOWS that this will be played in court), it's safe to assume that this isn't a problem for the majority of all other court reporters. This reporter/ stenographer just isn't up to snuff, most likely- and its not like he can scream just for her, imagine screaming into a room full of people you're trying to persuade for up to 6 hours at a time. You'd destroy your throat in the first 30 minutes. So no, this isn't a problem with the judge, lawyers, and all the witnesses, this is just a bad court reporter. If you have bad hearing or carpal tunnel or something, you probably shouldn't be a stenographer. It's perfectly fine to ask people to slow down, speak up, or repeat what they said - but if you need people screaming, annunciating every letter of every word, and you need them to repeat themself three times over and over again, you're a bad stenographer
@@emperorsascharoni9577 If the witness was mumbling, the lawyer would have asked him/her to speak up. It was the stenographer. And, if she was having that bad of a day, she shouldn't have gone in. Her job is critical in this situation and she was not able to do it that day. I worked as a paralegal for 17 years and sat in hundreds of depositions. I never saw a performance like that. Ever.
@@Bobrogers99 You can't! The transcript is the most important thing. If she can't transcribe what's being said, it's like it was never said. Ever single "um," "oh," and "uh" gets recorded. If the lawyer just ignored the stenographer and went ahead, it wouldn't get recorded. It *must* be in the transcript or there is nothing to use during the trial.
Having done interpreting, may things can "garble" speech as @SaltSpirits said , not speaking loud enough, and also when speaking too fast, the speaker fails to enunciate, a chair scraping the floor, a persistent cough from someone in the room, a door or bench creaking. Also, it's not uncommon for people who spend a lot of time in court to mumble.
I would make sure that stenographer never worked in my office again. She either cannot hear, which is essential to the job, or is soooo green that she doesn't know what she's doing. Either way, she ruined your deposition and shouldn't get a second chance.
Iirc they don't have a choice in the matter. The court reporter is hired by the court. They have as much say as to who it will be as they do the judge presiding over their trial.
Certified reporter here. To my friends, asking why we cannot be replaced with AI. It's a really simple reason. They are attempting to but the AI sucks. It's not at all consistent at producing a verbatim transcript time in and time out. A court reporter is required to write at a maximum of 225 words per minute to be state certified but more than not the word speed is 200 words per minute. Requirements will vary per your given state. So then, why don't you just write faster? Personally, I think reporters should obtain certificates where they would have to test at higher speed levels however that is not a mandate in any state. Now, in regards to the attorney flow, a reporters fundamental duty is to protect the record from being jeopardized. If the record gets fucked up, it's our ass on the line not anyone else's. And I promise you any reporter that has half a brain will never trust an attorney to say my bad partly because that's just stupid but more so that would be displaying a lack of impartiality. And ironically the people who are in the most danger of jeopardizing the record are the people who are shaping it. So those people are going to be attorneys, witnesses, and judges with the exception of a few other officials I have not named. So if the reporter was constantly interrupting him, there was potentially a reason for it. Another possibility could be it is a new reporter. Why is a new reporter handling a deposition where they are clearly, you might think, out of their league? Some deposition firms are assholes and will put new reporters on assignments they shouldn't because they don't give a shit about them or the clients they're supposed to be putting the deposition together for. Now, in defense of the attorney, a good reporter already understands that someone going into a deposition is going to fight. It can be frustrating if you're on a good one and a reporter has to interrupt you constantly. However, it's going to be even more frustrating if your record is dog shit, and the only person you're going to get pissy at is the reporter. Just some food for thought.
Omg, so funny!! I was in a deposition, someone had gotten injured at work. The lawyer would ask the question and I would answer immediately or speak too fast and the recorder (person) kept interrupting me and telling me to wait and slow down so she could type it out. I was already pizzed i had to be there since i wasnt involved. I was just the person who received the call about the injury. And her stopping me every time just made it worse. I wanted to theow things at her.
I would stop answering and request a recorder that was competent. Or I'd tell the lawyer to write his questions and I'd answer in writing since the recorder wasn't capable.
@@robchang4410 But often a simple yes or no is not "the whole truth". Also, when the question is open like, Where were you on the date in question? or "Who did you call immediately after the falling space debris struck your grandmother?"
Our certification exam tests our accuracy at 200 words per minute. If you speak faster than that, a reporter -- especially a newly licensed one -- may not be able to keep up. We are required to interrupt for accuracy sake anytime we miss something because someone was talking too fast, mumbling, speaking over each other, etc.
Fuck energy I’d rather be happy knowing the litigator is trying their best to do their job the best and most ethical way possible. Better than being in court and you can’t prove something because she didn’t wanna bother you and chose to leave some stuff out
The only thing I know is that if I'm ever on trial for any crime I don't want a single smoker in the jury pool because they're going to want that cigarette more than they're going to want my Justice
That sounds like an incompetent court reporter & a lead up to a courtroom scandal. I've never seen such a thing myself. Pure incompetence. THAT IS YOUR WHOLE JOB?!
Yeah but some judges still live in the 19th century and don't want those newfangled audio recorders in the room And to be fair even audio can get cut or noisy, or the person might mumble. Maybe in this case the lawyer (ahem) should have slowed down a bit and tried to enunciate more
I’m teaching myself stenography right now while at the same time studying to be eventually be a court reporter. In the research I’ve been doing, it seems a lot of aspiring reporters’ issue is lacking typing speed (180 WPM is the bare minimum), so it may be possible she just wasn’t very fast and needed to keep up.
At this point, with all this technology. I don't understand why it isn't just recorded and everyone wears a microphone. Auto-transcribing is a thing. Plus you save money.
Attorney: DAAHW! Your Honor, she's throwing off my groove! Judge: Im sorry Susan, but you've thrown off the attorney's groove. *nods to balliff* Ballif: *Yeets Susan out the courthouse window.*
Maybe not a court reporter, but a foreign language interpreter here: sometimes I will ask someone to slow down and speak up so I can hear them clearly, because they were not only racing but also mumbling and speaking so chaotically I had to guess what they were trying to say, which is unacceptable. The person said yes, started speaking a touch slower and louder, before devolving back to their initial manner of speaking within the same sentence. Remember: you always understand what you're saying. That doesn't mean that what you're saying is understandable
Courts have gotten in the habit of not creating voice recordings of the proceeding as a backup in addition to the one created by the court reporter and their data entry device. Why I do not know.
Noted. If im ever on jury duty for anything but a crime on children or spouses, Im going to ask "is everything we've beem showm in these videos able to be considered?" And the moment I get "yes", Im going to refuse to convict, as these statements have cut parts, and I dont know if theyre against or in favor of the defendant. And Im going to do jurry nullification without having to say "I did it for moral reasons I already said wouldnt be a problem"
They'll bring out the transcript the court reporter made. A lot of times, they're timestamped to match the recording. Reporters even write down that they interrupted. So they'll just point out that the jumps in the video correspond with the interruptions on the transcript.
@@jasmin2974 if the crime is one that Im morally opposed to sending somebody to prison for? Absolutely. Im going to take whatever ground I can to push for jury nullification WITHOUT saying so. Defandants have a better shot after a hung jury. Both in the second trial AND in plea deals that come up between the two.
@@jasmin2974 and lets look at what you said honestly. Waste a judge's time? Hes getting paid. The delay is only a few hours. Maybe days. If theres a hung jury, its a new judge. The first judge got paid for his work. The second judge will get paid for his work. Meanwhile, depending on the state, the defendant could be looking at YEARS for selling weed. Yeah. Until most defendants in victimless crimes say "I would have preferred you found me guilty than give me a second chance at a trial", Im gonna waste the time of the folks freely choosing to get paid for participating in the justice system. "But tax dollars". If youre mad, make laws that have high rates of jury nullification illegal. Its a democratic republic. Put up or shut up. Vote for the folks who are against charges for victimless crimes. If youre like me and realize that representatives dont and dont HAVE to listen to their constituents, jury nullification is our last stand against unjust laws. Im wasting time for people being paid for their time. And giving second chances to people facing years of confinement (and lifelong restrictions of rights after confinement) to folks who are praying that people like me exist.
Can the jury request to see the entire video without editing? And if so, can this be done in the courtroom or does this have to be done while they're deliberating or at least between days of trial?
Wait. My dad is a court reporter. He’s had to do this before. For reference my dad types at an average of 577 words per minute in stenography. He “BURST RATES” meaning fast as possible to keep up with an attorney who’s on a roll up to 750/800 words per minute. Attorneys often get into a pattern of going so fast the witness can’t answer to try to make them look for guilty. His depos often hit rates of 1,000-1,200 words per minute because an attorney is trying to do this. Get this straight, if you’re talking faster than the reporter can keep up, it’s ENTIRELY your fault as the attorney for speaking at an absolutely ungodly rate so that the jury in a trial or seats in a deposition can barely keep up with you so they assume you’re right. Slow down and talk at a normal rate. Reading a script in this scenario on CZcams you’re speaking at about 3-400 words per minute. I imagine you might be a burst rate of 900+. It’s also a dishonest tactic that causes unnecessary doubt in trials. Also when you burst rate faster than god himself could speak a reporter is required by law to have you repeat yourself slower. This was your fault bro. Stop being shady 😅
Cutting the video makes sense, if Im a juror I dont wanna see hours and hours of full depositions I wanna get home, get back to my normal job, and make a decision based on the facts that matter not opinion or what tangets the witnesses may go on
@@oriondye3212 if that's true, I'd be a terrible juror. The full context matters, and I'm going to be inclined to decide against whoever made the edits to the tape
"So did you do it?"
"Yes"
In the words of Zack Oyama “Yeah, I killed him”
Uh uh. Not guilty.
"Wait, what was that? Did he say he did it?"
"Uh.. depends on what 'it' were talking about."
" Scratch that, reverse it! "
My grandmother was an amazing court reporter. She could keep up better than any of her colleagues. Judges loved her. The ADAs loved her. The DA was her best friend for 40 years. Other districts tried to poach her, offering to pay for her to move closer to them.
What relevance does that have to the video? No one cares about your grandma
In 2024 being friend with the DA is not a good look our judicial system is so outrageously corrupt
Apparently offering better pay for the same job is “poaching”
What else is poaching?@@SnailHatan
@SnailHatan poaching as far as jobs go is more about the act of offering someone who's already employed in the same position a similar job with your company and less about the amount of money. It's considered bad form and even a bit rude to the company that the person currently works for. Now if that person was between jobs anyway and was offered the same position for more money or went looking for a new place to work that's not poaching. It's the act of trying to get an employee of another company to switch to yours that makes it poaching. When you work in industries where individual employees are taken a bit more seriously you find out what's up.
"You threw off the lawyers groove."
LMAO i really appreciate this comment
*Proceeds to get tackled by the bailiff*
My brain went here too. Made my comment then saw yours.
@@TheQuilavaQueen And tossed out a window
UK. I was on a jury and we got dismissed because of the cutting of an audio recording. Clearly the lawyers had agreed a certain amount of the recording was just pure fact, no wishy washy bits that could be interpreted. Unfortunately, the court gave us an unredacted copy for the deliberation room, which included some audio that was open to debate that neither side wanted us to consider. When they realised it, we got dismissed and it went to retrial.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the court itself would have to pay for the retrial (basically, in the event of a mistrial caused by either party or the court, the party responsible has to pay for the new trial).
Stories like this just reinforce my belief that the judicial system is broken. If you don't want the jury to interpret the evidence, then you don't want them to actually make an informed decision.
@@edbangor9163 The mere fact that you aren't allowed to know about law in the first place shows that well enough. If you are called for jury duty, and in prepartion phase ask some specific questions, they will just say that you can't be on that jury and they will find somebody else.
@@SchilaniI dont think that holds true least in the US. There were two lawyers on Trump's NY jury. So maybe its specific types of lawyers not lawyers in general.
i.e. a former prosecuter likely cant serve
@@kitwhite2640 I was actually more referring to laymen knowing specific things, like the right to basically ignore everything on the table and give an innocent verdict, just because they don't want to see somebody behind bars, even tho the person is definitely guilty.
Also, bigger cases are probably treated differently anyway. And I wouldn't put it past them, to specifically try to find people, that wanted to find Trump guilty. That's just how politics works.
Court reporting is insanely hard. I went to school for it. It’s basically another language and we have to get it accurate for the record so interrupting here and there when needed is absolutely necessary for your case, but all the time is definitely a problem. We were always told by our professors, other working court reporters, lawyers as well as a judge to do what you need to to get the most accurate record because without you there is no accurate record. Recordings can be mumbled, cut out, things missed etc so interrupting once in a blue moon when you need to get it accurate when it’s hard as fuck to take down and people are talking fast is needed, but all the time is not okay and should probably get a different court reporter to take down that deposition for that trial.
Locally they finally moved (or made an effort to) to typing them instead of handwriting them. I guarantee handwriting, I would never keep up. But typing, I can. Good ADAs would require typing as permissible.
Reporters for deposition are free lance. They drive up in.their 85 car dressed like they are going in their yard. Bad attitude too. Probably not all but it was the one I got.
@@mlmielkeyeah, who handwrites? I thought that they learn that fancy way of typing that creates words with fewer keystrokes
@@mlmielke what are you....court reporters have not handwritten the record since the invention of the typewriter.
and these days they don't even use a regular typewriter. so i'm confused. what do you mean??
Yea it’s a special expensive machine where you are looking like you are typing but it’s called writing. It is indeed another language when I was in school I learned how to write ladies and gentlemen of the jury in one stroke which means all my fingers on the keys at the same time came out to that phrase. It basically looks like a cat walked across a keyboard. We understand it, but it is extremely hard. They are not just learning to type fast or right fast. It is not English. It is not anything like that. It is absolutely insane and what a skill I have so much respect for the people who do that, but the ones that I know make very, very, very good money, but they went through a lot to get there. You can work for the court, an agency or be free lance.
I'd say having a court reporter mishear and then record wrong is worse than a recording being mumbly.
I was hearing court reporter and thought: "isn't that a stenographer?"
Yes, but with more options basically.
As a legal transcriber, that sounds like one of my nightmares. 😂
"and you got the witness going 'YES! YES! YES! YES!!"
is this "witness" laying on a couch by any chance??
If the court reporter cannot hear or understand you. How to you expect a jury to hear or understand you?
Absolute clown of a lawyer here.
@@luigirock96 well I would assume that if he cut out those bits where they clarified for the reporter, it means he was probably super clear but the reporter was having issues. Come on now. He cut the video, he would have been able to tell if he was the one speaking unclear or his witness. That obviously wasn’t the case. I know you are probably intelligent enough to figure that out but pretend that him being unclear is the only option, like he would give an unclear video to the jury to watch 😂
That can happen. My grandmother did it for a while and there was some people that couldn’t keep up with more than two words at a time. They were super good at writing down fast but if they got more than a word behind they wouldn’t remember the rest. It takes fast writing and a good memory while multitasking.
The reporter was probably new.
Listening is way, way easier than listening and typing out what you hear in real time.
You need to think though: this is a deposition room with at least half to 3/ of all the trial participants there. Often depo rooms are similar in size to the actual courtroom itself. So, if he's speaking at a normal volume and cadence to how he normally speaks in court (which, most likely he is, since he also KNOWS that this will be played in court), it's safe to assume that this isn't a problem for the majority of all other court reporters. This reporter/ stenographer just isn't up to snuff, most likely- and its not like he can scream just for her, imagine screaming into a room full of people you're trying to persuade for up to 6 hours at a time. You'd destroy your throat in the first 30 minutes. So no, this isn't a problem with the judge, lawyers, and all the witnesses, this is just a bad court reporter. If you have bad hearing or carpal tunnel or something, you probably shouldn't be a stenographer. It's perfectly fine to ask people to slow down, speak up, or repeat what they said - but if you need people screaming, annunciating every letter of every word, and you need them to repeat themself three times over and over again, you're a bad stenographer
I am still thinking that interrupting a lawyer during cross examination should be illegal.
Unfortunately, she has to interrupt to make sure the transcript is accurate but that lady had a real problem. She shouldn't be a stenographer.
@@adterpandreamaybe she just had a bad day or the witness was mumbling
@@adterpandrea If I were the lawyer and on a roll and needed to ask the next question I would ignore the recorder and ask it.
@@emperorsascharoni9577 If the witness was mumbling, the lawyer would have asked him/her to speak up. It was the stenographer. And, if she was having that bad of a day, she shouldn't have gone in. Her job is critical in this situation and she was not able to do it that day. I worked as a paralegal for 17 years and sat in hundreds of depositions. I never saw a performance like that. Ever.
@@Bobrogers99 You can't! The transcript is the most important thing. If she can't transcribe what's being said, it's like it was never said. Ever single "um," "oh," and "uh" gets recorded. If the lawyer just ignored the stenographer and went ahead, it wouldn't get recorded. It *must* be in the transcript or there is nothing to use during the trial.
You have to consider that if "the flow and energy" of the argument is so important, then Law is not a science but a show.
Lawyers are literally paid to argue for their client. It's not what you did, it's what they can prove in court.
Yes… and? I thought that was a known fact at this point
Is that not the point of a lawyer??? To string things together in a flow for your client and disrupt the other parties flow?
That would make me want to question the court reporter and find out if they are affiliated with that witness in any way or the present case.
It does absolutely nothing to even remotely imply that they’re affiliated with the witness, it implies this guy is not speaking loudly enough.
Having done interpreting, may things can "garble" speech as @SaltSpirits said , not speaking loud enough, and also when speaking too fast, the speaker fails to enunciate, a chair scraping the floor, a persistent cough from someone in the room, a door or bench creaking.
Also, it's not uncommon for people who spend a lot of time in court to mumble.
I would make sure that stenographer never worked in my office again. She either cannot hear, which is essential to the job, or is soooo green that she doesn't know what she's doing. Either way, she ruined your deposition and shouldn't get a second chance.
Iirc they don't have a choice in the matter. The court reporter is hired by the court. They have as much say as to who it will be as they do the judge presiding over their trial.
Somebody who is green should never be given a second chance? Are you perfect at everything you do first try?
Well, hope we never see you try anything more than once…
Certified reporter here.
To my friends, asking why we cannot be replaced with AI. It's a really simple reason. They are attempting to but the AI sucks. It's not at all consistent at producing a verbatim transcript time in and time out. A court reporter is required to write at a maximum of 225 words per minute to be state certified but more than not the word speed is 200 words per minute. Requirements will vary per your given state.
So then, why don't you just write faster? Personally, I think reporters should obtain certificates where they would have to test at higher speed levels however that is not a mandate in any state.
Now, in regards to the attorney flow, a reporters fundamental duty is to protect the record from being jeopardized.
If the record gets fucked up, it's our ass on the line not anyone else's. And I promise you any reporter that has half a brain will never trust an attorney to say my bad partly because that's just stupid but more so that would be displaying a lack of impartiality. And ironically the people who are in the most danger of jeopardizing the record are the people who are shaping it. So those people are going to be attorneys, witnesses, and judges with the exception of a few other officials I have not named. So if the reporter was constantly interrupting him, there was potentially a reason for it. Another possibility could be it is a new reporter. Why is a new reporter handling a deposition where they are clearly, you might think, out of their league? Some deposition firms are assholes and will put new reporters on assignments they shouldn't because they don't give a shit about them or the clients they're supposed to be putting the deposition together for. Now, in defense of the attorney, a good reporter already understands that someone going into a deposition is going to fight. It can be frustrating if you're on a good one and a reporter has to interrupt you constantly. However, it's going to be even more frustrating if your record is dog shit, and the only person you're going to get pissy at is the reporter. Just some food for thought.
Same with interpreters!
Keep an eye out for her book "How to Lose a Great Stenography Gig" by Susan
Omg, so funny!! I was in a deposition, someone had gotten injured at work. The lawyer would ask the question and I would answer immediately or speak too fast and the recorder (person) kept interrupting me and telling me to wait and slow down so she could type it out. I was already pizzed i had to be there since i wasnt involved. I was just the person who received the call about the injury. And her stopping me every time just made it worse. I wanted to theow things at her.
I would stop answering and request a recorder that was competent. Or I'd tell the lawyer to write his questions and I'd answer in writing since the recorder wasn't capable.
maybe you should stick to YES or NO answer to make it easier on the "recorder (person)"
@@robchang4410 But often a simple yes or no is not "the whole truth".
Also, when the question is open like, Where were you on the date in question? or "Who did you call immediately after the falling space debris struck your grandmother?"
@@robchang4410if only!
This is why court monitors are replacing court reporters.
You see he's familiar with shooting scenes because he played Lamplighter in The Boys
Our certification exam tests our accuracy at 200 words per minute. If you speak faster than that, a reporter -- especially a newly licensed one -- may not be able to keep up. We are required to interrupt for accuracy sake anytime we miss something because someone was talking too fast, mumbling, speaking over each other, etc.
That is a terrible quality court reporter
Thank you for the information!!
You are darn right i ordered a code red
I mean... physical stenographers when cameras and recorders exist are wild.
When the lawyer asks the *witness* if they did it and they just go "yeah" 💀💀💀
Fuck energy I’d rather be happy knowing the litigator is trying their best to do their job the best and most ethical way possible. Better than being in court and you can’t prove something because she didn’t wanna bother you and chose to leave some stuff out
Well, its not a performance, you're not supposed to hit crescendos. I see how it would be annoying, but its not a flaw of the system
The only thing I know is that if I'm ever on trial for any crime I don't want a single smoker in the jury pool because they're going to want that cigarette more than they're going to want my Justice
“We had H2O”
😂
Wait, can you wait to wait
That sounds like an incompetent court reporter & a lead up to a courtroom scandal. I've never seen such a thing myself. Pure incompetence. THAT IS YOUR WHOLE JOB?!
record that shit mayhaps?
Yeah but some judges still live in the 19th century and don't want those newfangled audio recorders in the room
And to be fair even audio can get cut or noisy, or the person might mumble. Maybe in this case the lawyer (ahem) should have slowed down a bit and tried to enunciate more
Tapes can be edited, and electronic audio files can get edited even easier.
@@ghost307 anything can be edited when you're desperate enough
@@agmhelena7266 True, but when it's more difficult to do it's easier to prove the additional criminal act of tampering or obstruction of justice.
Exactly!
and more importantly is going to give hostile witnesses time to compose themselves.
I’m teaching myself stenography right now while at the same time studying to be eventually be a court reporter. In the research I’ve been doing, it seems a lot of aspiring reporters’ issue is lacking typing speed (180 WPM is the bare minimum), so it may be possible she just wasn’t very fast and needed to keep up.
Ugh, *Susan*.
That one should never have been a court reporter.
I'd be mad as hell and look at the judge like dude is this fr
An effective if infuriating strategy
The fact that they don't use a recorder yet instead of a human is baffling
Sounds like a good court reporter, actually. If the court reporter can't understand you, what makes you think the jury can?
Exactly!
Because of how court rooms are set up. He would be right by the jury, the court reporter would not be.
When I have done Jury duty we would spend AGES waiting for people to find their time stamps lol
Court reporters seem outdated because we have the technology to record things in an easier way.
At this point, with all this technology.
I don't understand why it isn't just recorded and everyone wears a microphone.
Auto-transcribing is a thing. Plus you save money.
Could never be a court stenographer. First of all, I don't type that fast, but more importantly my hearing is hot garbage.
so you were outsmarted by the other lawyer
Have that court reporter fired. Unless you want her again.
if you can't keep up, that ain't the job for you.
Damn you Susan...!
Come on Susan!! _Sharpen up!_
This is why stenographers should be directly sent any microphone signals the court is set up to detect.
That's next level professionalism, she slowed you down so the jury could hear you 😇
Exactly!
No she was just having her own issues hearing/understanding him. He would be beside the jury, the court reporter is on the other side of the room.
Surely you could ask to have her removed
Attorney: DAAHW! Your Honor, she's throwing off my groove!
Judge: Im sorry Susan, but you've thrown off the attorney's groove. *nods to balliff*
Ballif: *Yeets Susan out the courthouse window.*
Susans be like that
Susan? 😒
Susan. 😑😑
You couldn't pick the time-honored "Jane" could you? Nope, had to go with Susan. Thanks, counsellor. 🙄
Introducing... The worlds best court reporter....
THE MICROPHONE!!!!!!!! 🎉🎉🎉
Are you sure that she's not being paid off by the defense to keep the wind out out of your sails?
Sounds like they can get fired and then better employee will come and do that job
Grounds for mis-trial maybe?
FIRED
One, they should not be allowed to interrupt.
Two, it's 2024, just record the stinking thing and transcribe later!
Maybe not a court reporter, but a foreign language interpreter here: sometimes I will ask someone to slow down and speak up so I can hear them clearly, because they were not only racing but also mumbling and speaking so chaotically I had to guess what they were trying to say, which is unacceptable. The person said yes, started speaking a touch slower and louder, before devolving back to their initial manner of speaking within the same sentence. Remember: you always understand what you're saying. That doesn't mean that what you're saying is understandable
Not only that, it can be hard to understand someone when they're crying, angry, nervous, fidgety.
@deamery6207 exactly!
Sounds like Susan needs to find a new profession.
And it's for reasons like that that I went to jail
She probably didn't earn it
The court reporter has an extremely important job. Either slow down or shut up.
well yeah, it is important thats why they should be able to write everything down without interruption
Not a job i could do, thats for sure
I bet she was bribed to mess up your flow or the person that assigns court reporters was paid off to give you an incompetent one.
Susan needs to get it together!
Susan would bring looking for other work and would be banned from my cases or held accountable for disturbing the court case flow and affect juries.
Why cant the jury get all the facts instead of crooked versions?
You really want to See how they are MC Donalds for 40 minutes and Then ASK how their day was?
Maybe she shouldn't be working that job if she can't keep up.
I already know who it was. It was this old woman from Huseby Global Litigation.
My sister-in-Law used to be a court reporter. They have to keep track of everything or they get fired. Disagree with this video. 👎
You pick them, and you pay them.
Courts have gotten in the habit of not creating voice recordings of the proceeding as a backup in addition to the one created by the court reporter and their data entry device. Why I do not know.
Shes getting paid to break your stride. Check it out.
Honestly I couldn't do that job
You look like the lawyer from the rookie
Can we backtrack 5 seconds
Sounds like susan was paid off.
Did Susan make a bonus maybe?
My mind went immediately to somebody, doing something dirty, somewhere, that money played the lead in.
😊
When you def aren't qualified for the job but gotta pay rent
Noted.
If im ever on jury duty for anything but a crime on children or spouses, Im going to ask "is everything we've beem showm in these videos able to be considered?"
And the moment I get "yes", Im going to refuse to convict, as these statements have cut parts, and I dont know if theyre against or in favor of the defendant. And Im going to do jurry nullification without having to say "I did it for moral reasons I already said wouldnt be a problem"
They'll bring out the transcript the court reporter made. A lot of times, they're timestamped to match the recording. Reporters even write down that they interrupted. So they'll just point out that the jumps in the video correspond with the interruptions on the transcript.
@@jasmin2974 dont care. Its a way to use jury nullification without dropping the term "jury nullification".
@@marcush4741 you'll hold up deliberations, waste the judge's time, and make the other jurors mad just for funzies?
@@jasmin2974 if the crime is one that Im morally opposed to sending somebody to prison for?
Absolutely. Im going to take whatever ground I can to push for jury nullification WITHOUT saying so. Defandants have a better shot after a hung jury. Both in the second trial AND in plea deals that come up between the two.
@@jasmin2974 and lets look at what you said honestly.
Waste a judge's time?
Hes getting paid. The delay is only a few hours. Maybe days. If theres a hung jury, its a new judge. The first judge got paid for his work. The second judge will get paid for his work.
Meanwhile, depending on the state, the defendant could be looking at YEARS for selling weed.
Yeah. Until most defendants in victimless crimes say "I would have preferred you found me guilty than give me a second chance at a trial", Im gonna waste the time of the folks freely choosing to get paid for participating in the justice system.
"But tax dollars". If youre mad, make laws that have high rates of jury nullification illegal. Its a democratic republic. Put up or shut up. Vote for the folks who are against charges for victimless crimes. If youre like me and realize that representatives dont and dont HAVE to listen to their constituents, jury nullification is our last stand against unjust laws.
Im wasting time for people being paid for their time. And giving second chances to people facing years of confinement (and lifelong restrictions of rights after confinement) to folks who are praying that people like me exist.
Why do they have court reporters? Isn’t there an auto transcription service that can be used or just record it and copy it down later?
Can the jury request to see the entire video without editing?
And if so, can this be done in the courtroom or does this have to be done while they're deliberating or at least between days of trial?
One reason to have court on zoom or you tube…
Does the court reporter have to record their own interruptions?
Is the court reporter not able to revisit the video.. for things they may not have caught or clearly understood at the initial time?
Wait. My dad is a court reporter. He’s had to do this before. For reference my dad types at an average of 577 words per minute in stenography. He “BURST RATES” meaning fast as possible to keep up with an attorney who’s on a roll up to 750/800 words per minute. Attorneys often get into a pattern of going so fast the witness can’t answer to try to make them look for guilty. His depos often hit rates of 1,000-1,200 words per minute because an attorney is trying to do this.
Get this straight, if you’re talking faster than the reporter can keep up, it’s ENTIRELY your fault as the attorney for speaking at an absolutely ungodly rate so that the jury in a trial or seats in a deposition can barely keep up with you so they assume you’re right. Slow down and talk at a normal rate. Reading a script in this scenario on CZcams you’re speaking at about 3-400 words per minute. I imagine you might be a burst rate of 900+. It’s also a dishonest tactic that causes unnecessary doubt in trials. Also when you burst rate faster than god himself could speak a reporter is required by law to have you repeat yourself slower.
This was your fault bro. Stop being shady 😅
I think I would have paused the deposition and called the agency to see if they had another stenographer they could send to replace her.
Why do we even still have a person doing it just have a audio and video recording of the court room and put subtitles
It doesn't just suck the energy out of the room. It breaks the opponents flow and frustrates them. I guarantee you she was doing it intentionally.
Cutting the video makes sense, if Im a juror I dont wanna see hours and hours of full depositions I wanna get home, get back to my normal job, and make a decision based on the facts that matter not opinion or what tangets the witnesses may go on
Got to keep up the energy? I thought jurors were finders of facts, not an audience to be emotionally manipulated...
Haha have I got a bridge to sell you.
Modern legal system is smoke, mirrors, sleight of hand, back door deals.
What happens when the jury asks "what happened during that 30 seconds that you cut from the tape?"
Theyre told not to worry about it. Their job is to judge tue evidence presented, not demand for extraneous facts.
@@oriondye3212 if that's true, I'd be a terrible juror. The full context matters, and I'm going to be inclined to decide against whoever made the edits to the tape
@@edbangor9163 As the guy said, both sides have to agree on the editing.
How to lose your job as a court reporter
Court reporting has been a silly thing for the last 70 years and today it's especially silly
It court reporter job to Interrupt the court hearing