NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

10 869

POTENTIAL USES OF COURT RELATED

VIDEO RECORDING

Nl 71—1 33— I

Department of Justice

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards

1

was established by an act of Congress March 3, 1901. The Bureaus overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation’s science and

technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the

Bureau conducts research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation’s physical measure- ment system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety.

The Bureau consists of the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials

Research, the Institute for Applied Technology, the Center for Computer Sciences and

Technology, and the Office for Information Programs.

THE INSTITUTE FOR BASIC STANDARDS provides the central basis within the

United States of a complete and consistent system of physical measurement; coordinates

that system with measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services

leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation’s scientific community, industry, and commerce. The Institute consists of a Center for Radiation Research, an Office of Measurement Services and the following divisions: Applied Mathematics—Flcctricity—Heat—Mechanics—Optical Physics—Linac

Radiation-—Nuclear Radiation-—Applied Radiation-—Quantum Electronics3—

Electromagnetics3—Time and Frequency*—Laboratory Astrophysics3—Cryogenics'*.

THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research lead- ing to improved methods of measurement, standards, and data on the properties of

well-characterized materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and

Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government agencies;

and develops, produces, and distributes standard reference materials. The Institute con

sists of the Office of Standard Reference Materials and the following divisions: Analytical Chemistry—Polymers—Metallurgy—Inorganic Materials- --Keacior

Radiation—Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to pro- mote the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations leading to the development of technological standards (including mandatory safety standards), odes

and methods of test; and provides technical advice and services to Government agencies

upon request. The Institute also monitors NBS engineering standards activities and

provides liaison between NBS and national and international engineering standards

bodies. The Institute consists of the following divisions and offices: Engineering Standards Services—Weights and Measures—Invention and

Innovation—Product Evaluation Technology—Building Research—Electronic

Technology—Technical Analysis—Measurement Engineering—Office of Fire

Programs.

THE CENTER FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts re search and provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in improving cost effectiveness in the conduct of their programs through the selection, acquisition,

and effective utilization of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus within the executive branch for the development of Federal standards for

automatic data processing equipment, techniques, and computer languages. The Center

consists of the following offices and divisions: Information Processing Standards—Computer Information—Computer Services —Systems Development—Information Processing Technology.

THE OFFICE FOR INFORMATION PROGRAMS promotes optimum dissemination

and accessibility of scientific information generated within NBS and other agencies of

the Federal Government; promotes the development of the National Standard Reference

Data System and a system of information analysis centers dealing with the broader

aspects of the National Measurement System; provides appropriate services to ensure

that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world,

and directs the public information activities of the Bureau. The Office consists of the

following organizational units: Office of Standard Reference Data—Office of Technical Information and

Publications—Library—Office of International Relations.

1 Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, Maryland, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, D.C. 20234.

2 Part of the Center for Radiation Research.

3 Located at Boulder, Colorado 80302.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

NBS PROJECT

4314509 July 1972

NBS REPORT

10 869

POTENTIAL USES OF COURT RELATED

VIDEO RECORDING

by

Nancy Kingsbury

Donald Corrigan

Stuart Fribush

Suellen Halpin

John Schleter

N I 71 — 133— IA Department of Justice

IMPORTANT NOTICE NATIONAL BUREAU OF ST,

for use within the Government,

and review. For this reason, the whole or in part, is not author Bureau of Standards, Washingto

the Report has been specifically

Approved for public release by the

Director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

on October 9, 2015.

ss accounting documents intended

subjected to additional evaluation

listing of this Report, either in

; Office of the Director, National

y the Government agency for which

opies for its own use.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF VIDEO RECORDING

IN THE COURTS 7

III. THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT 41

IV. VIDEO RECORDING EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS 61

V. SUMMARY AND NEW DIRECTIONS 92

APPENDIX A

Summary of Statutes and Court Rules Affecting

the Use of Video Recording in the Courts .... 108

APPENDIX B

Guidance Panel: Court-Centered Uses of

Video Recording 185

APPENDIX C

Summary Report on Court Centered

Video Tape Panel 187

APPENDIX D

Electronic Industries Association of Japan

Standard Specifications for one-half

inch VTRs 198

APPENDIX E

Selected Bibliography 199

LIST OF TABLES

Table III-l Summary of Major Characteristics of

State Laws or Court Rules Related to

Uses of Video Recording in the

Courts 45

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

FIGURE IV- 1 63

FIGURE IV- 2 6 6

FIGURE IV- 3 Characteristics of Typical One-half

Inch Format 6 8

FIGURE IV-4 Characteristics of Typical One Inch

Format Video Tape Recorders 69

FIGURE IV- 5 Charactei^tics of Typical Video Cameras- • 74

FIGURE IV-6 Characteristics of Typical Video Monitors - 76

r FIGURE IV- 7 Characteristics of Typical Portable Video

Recording Systems 78

FIGURE IV- 8 Cost of Typical Good Quality Video

Recording Tape 8 0

FIGURE IV- 9 Characteristics of Typical

Microphones 82

FIGURE IV- 10 Characteristics of Typical Video

Accessories 83

FIGURE IV— 11 Configuration of Video System for

Testimonial Evidence 86

FIGURE IV-12 Configuration of Video System for

Making Trial Record 89
.
POTENTIAL USES OF COURT RELATED VIDEO RECORDING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Court procedures have evolved slowly over the years,

many of them dating from English Common Law of several

centuries ago. Procedures have been altered only after

extended consideration, for traditional methods of

decisions based on precedent tend to inhibit radical

departures and innovations. Society itself has been slow

to change and has therefore not required its institutions

to do more than maintain pace.

In recent years, the numbers of crimes have increased,

and advances in technology have raised the likelihood of

a criminal being caught and, potentially, proven guilty.

At the same time, interpretations of the law and of the

Constitution have acted to lengthen the time for processing

a criminal case? to increase the likelihood of appeal

(which further adds to the duration of a case) ; and to

increase the peripheral workload within the criminal

justice system (e.g. , more transcripts, more records).

Recognized authorities, as well as the general public, now

believe that the resultant crowded court system is rapidly

approaching crisis.

To alleviate congestion in the courts, new technology

is being considered; for example, video tape recording may

be useful for several possible roles. Isolated experiments

have shown the potential of video recording in limited

i
applications. Recognizing the need to assess the potential

and impact of this technology on the courts and court problems/

the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National

Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the

Department of Justice sponsored a comprehensive review of

video recording in the courts, to be conducted by the Technical

Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards.

The study had two major goals, the first of which was

the documentation of the current state of video technology

and its relationship to the criminal justice system. Secondly,

the documentation would serve as a basis for guidelines and

recommendations for future work, spotlighting questions

still to be answered (both technological and legal) . The

study was largely intended to serve a survey function and

to summarize in one document current knowledge about three

major topics:

m availability of video recording equipment systems

and their suitability for court purposes;

9 legal environment and attitudes affecting video

recording in court-centered applications? and

9 recent or ongoing implementation of video recording

in courts on either an operational or experimental basis.

At the time this study was initiated, video recording

in the courts was hot much more than a topic of conversation.

Only the Illinois court system was known to have experimented

in this field, and it was proceeding deliberately in a well

defined application. During the past year, however, additional

ii
experimentation, or even adoption, of video recording has

been attempted in other jurisdictions. Some concepts

which were barely envisaged a year ago have by now been

tried and, in some cases, accepted by both the legal

community and the general public.

Several jurisdictions have adopted video recording

as a means of obtaining evidence in some types of cases,

particularly traffic cases involving negligent driving.

Courts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, in

particular, have permitted and even encouraged the use

of video-recorded depositions during trials. Extensive

experiments have been undertaken to evaluate the

feasibility of providing a video record of trial

proceedings as the official court record: Alaska has

adopted video recording as a fully acceptable means of

court recording, and Michigan is at least one additional

state which is expanding its program of video trial records.

In Ohio, an entire trial has been presented via video tape;

the success attained is expected to lead to more video

trials, particularly in civil matters.

Despite the spreading use of video recording in the

courts in recent months, there are still substantive legal

barriers to widespread adoption in many jurisdictions.

Even in the simplest applications, such as the presentation

of evidence or depositions, statutes or court rules restricting

electronic equipment in some courtrooms may prohibit depositions

or any other use of video. For video recorded trial proceedings

in
or presentation of trial via video recording, the very

advantages of the new technique (i.e., removal of the

requirement for hard-copy transcript) require

major changes to long established mechanisms of trial procedure

and appellate review. Modifications of statutes and court rules

are usually slow, and adoption of video recording in operating

courtrooms may thus be delayed by legal constraints for some

time.

This study has been completed in the sense that its

objectives have been met as of an arbitrary point in time,

for there are continuing equipment developments, changes

in law, and an expanding willingness to experiment. Many

cognizant individuals now seem to feel that experimentation

should be nearing its end, and that it is time for decisions

regarding video technology. It is hoped that the overview

provided by this project will aid in follow-on activities,

especially with regard to primary and secondary impacts of

video recording in the criminal justice system. However,

the survey conducted during this study points up the need

for a problem-centered perspective . There are many important

court problems, and each must be evaluated to determine

whether video recording (or for that matter any other

technical innovation) is the best possible solution.

The following specific conclusions have been drawn

on the basis of this study:
1

Video recording may be used in several ways to

provide limited/ immediate help in reducing congestion in

the courts and in improving the "quality of justice. 11

However, most applications to the courts to date have been

t experimental and fragmented. Systematic field application

under controlled conditions is necessary to evaluate

technological impact and relative costs.

2 . Particular applications of video recording have

proven their value and are now acceptable methods of

presenting evidence in some courts . Video depositions save

much waiting time for witnesses and serve the convenience

of all parties, and the quality of presentation has been

improved by reducing the nervousness of appearing in court.

Increasing police use of video to record events which may

be criminal and interrogations of suspects or witnesses may

aid in solving crimes and in obtaining convictions, as

well as protecting individual rights.

3 . Although criminal trials are not now recorded for

educational purposes, there is demonstrable need for such

educational tools which should be satisfied as soon as

possible . Video recording would not interfere with the

judicial process, and taped trials would offer an unequalled

opportunity to improve legal education. Broader experience

with trial activity while in law school might also have

the side effect of interesting more law students in trial

law as a career.

v
4 . Any applications of video recording which would

markedly alter present procedures and functions should be

approached systematically and with caution . On the surface,

video recording manifests the potential of reducing backlogs

and improving trial and appellate procedures, but there

are legal issues to be resolved systematically. Video

recording should be adopted when it offers the best

solution to a given problem, with care taken to minimize

unwanted side effects.

5 . Video recording equipment has been designed mainly

for institutional or educational uses, and therefore may not

have the ideal features for court purposes . After further

experience in court activities, performance requirements

should be developed for a court-oriented video system,

and manufacturers should be encouraged to modify products

specifically for court use.

6 . Statutes and court rules relating to video recording

in many state courts are out-of-date and cumbersome. The

lead of the Federal courts should be followed by amending

rules and allowing greater flexibility in introducing new

technology . Legislatures and courts, like other institutions

which are adapting to new technology, should stress the

development of performance criteria for designated functions,

rather than specifying the precise methods for accomplishing

those functions.

vr
Video recording has been partially accepted in limited

applications. There are indications of high potential

for the future, and great interest in further investigations.

However, more work is required to insure efficiency and

cost effectiveness.

vii

I. INTRODUCTION

Court procedures have evolved slowly over the years,

many of them dating from English Common Law of several

centuries ago. Procedures have been altered only after

extended consideration, for traditional methods of decisions

based on precedent tend to inhibit radical departures and

innovations. Nonetheless, traditional and time-tested court

methods have served their purpose throughout the course of

legal history, for society itself has been slow to change and

has therefore not required its institutions to do more than

maintain pace.

The rate of society’s change has accelerated drastically

since the turn of this century, including effects on crime

and criminal justice. The numbers of crimes have increased,

but advances in technology have raised the likelihood of

a criminal being caught and (potentially) proven guilty.

At the same time, especially in recent years, interpretations

of the law and of the Constitution have acted to lengthen

the time for processing a criminal case; to increase the

likelihood of appeal (which further adds to the duration of

a case) ; and to increase the peripheral workload within the

criminal justice system (e.g., more transcripts, more records).

Recognized authorities, as well as the general public, now

believe that the resultant crowded court system is rapidly

approaching crisis. Procedures which functioned adequately

in earlier times are now barely functioning, and in

- 1

-
some cases, their utility is being called into question.

Technological developments have been considered as a

means for improvement, particularly for reducing congestion

in court systems. For example, computer technology has

already been applied in some courts for data retrieval,

case scheduling, and most recently, for producing court

record transcripts.* Following the trend pioneered by the

state of Alaska, many states now use audio recording to

supplement or supplant stenographic reporters in the taking

of records of proceedings.

The resort to new technology is often an attempt to

cope immediately with a particular major problem in a single

court jurisdiction. Innovations are frequently adopted precipitately and without>.full appreciation of likely impact,

especially as to side effects. More generally, questions

are being raised today whether peripheral costs of introducing new technologies may in the end outweigh the sought

benefits even when the primary goals have been satisfied.

It is clear that, whenever possible, both primary and

secondary effects should be hypothesized and considered

in advance, and that new techniques should be introduced

* Nancy Kingsbury and Jenny Eldreth, A Study of Court

Reporting Systems , Vol. II, Experimental Phase , Washington

D. C., National Bureau of Standards , NBS Report 10 642,

March 1972. See Appendix E for titles of additional volumes

in that report series.

2 -
with a view to satisfying the major problem of concern

without undue (or with minimum) complications and drawbacks .Video tape recording is one new technology which is

being considered for several possible roles to alleviate

congestion in the courts. Isolated experiments have shown

the potential of video recording in limited applications.

However, a broad examination has not yet been undertaken,

nor has any assessment been made of the peripheral effects

on the total crimial justice system.

In recognition of the need to assess the potential and

impact of video technology on the courts and court problem^

the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National

Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the

Department of Justice sponsored a comprehensive review of

video recording in the courts, to be conducted by the

Technical Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards.

TAD had conducted earlier research on several aspects of the

criminal justice system, both from the point of view of

developing an understanding of the operation of the system

* and of the sources of the impending crisis, as well as

* John W. Locke , et. al. , Compilation and Use of Criminal

Court Data in Relation to Pre-Trial Release of Defendants : Pilot Study , Washington, D. C., National Bureau of Standards,

Technical Note 535, August 1970. An in-house study is also

being conducted to explore a number of aspects of systems

analysis/justice process interactions.

- 3 -
studies of the feasibility of specific technological inno-

* vations in the court process. LEAA asked TAD to:

1. Identify and describe representative video tape

recording systems which are currently available and adaptable to courtroom use;

2. Postulate opportunities for employment of courtcentered video recording techniques (and, in particular,

explore the use of video recording as a method of providing

the court record)

3. Investigate legal or other barriers to courtcentered use of video recording; and

4. Develop guidelines and design demonstration projects

in which to observe operating video systems and to evaluate

their impact on the criminal justice system, to resolve

operational difficulties, and to explore the extent of

technological promise which may be achievable.

* E. Nilsson, et. al.. Studying Criminal Court Processes:

Some Tools and Techniques , Washington, D. C., National Bureau

of Standards, Report 10 258, Revised, April 1972. Also

Kingsbury and Eldreth, Court Reporting Systems and other

volumes in that series.

- 4 -
There were two major goals, the first of which was

the documentation of the current state of video technology

and its relationship to the criminal justice system. A

survey was undertaken to determine the availability and

suitability of equipment, the nature of experiments in video

recording underway in local jurisdictions, attitudinal and

legal barriers to video applications, and any proposed uses.

Secondly, the documentation would serve as a basis for guidelines and recommendations for future work, spotlighting

questions still to be answered (both technological and

legal) . It would also develop mechanisms to evaluate

achievement of the primary goal of helping to reduce court

crisis without interfering with the administration of justice

or individual rights.

This study has been completed in the sense that its

objectives have been met as of an arbitrary point in time,

for there are continuing equipment developments, changes

in law, and an expanding willingness to experiment. Many

cognizant individuals now seem to feel that experimentation

should be nearing its end, and that it is time for decisions

regarding video technology. It is hoped that the overview

provided by this project will aid in follow-on activities,

especially with regard to primary and secondary impacts

of video recording on the criminal justice system.

- 5 -
This report contains four major sections (following

this Introduction)

II. Potential Applications of Video Recording in

the Courts - describes those applications of video technology

offering the most promise for the court environment, along

with descriptions of experiments conducted to date and

special issues (both legal and technical) which bear on

the adoption of such applications.

III. The Legal Environment - discusses state laws and

court rules relevant; using video recording in the courts,

and briefly examines the pertinent attitudinal climate in

the legal community.

IV. Video Recording Equipment Systems - describes

the operating characteristics and limitations of available,

suitable video recording systems and components, along with

estimates of cost for various system configurations.

V. Summary and New Directions - reviews the current

position of video recording in the courts and recommends

field applications and additional related research.

Detailed court rules and statutes bearing on the issue

of video recording in the courts, references, and other

supplementary material will be found in the appendices.

- 6 -
II. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF VIDEO RECORDING IN THE COURTS

As discussed in detail below, the survey of present

applications of video recording in the courts (and those

under consideration) suggests four major areas (plus

several peripheral applications) where video recording

might importantly aid court systems. They are presented

in an order which roughly reflects the extent to which

they have already been accepted, to wit:

(a) to record and present testimony;

(b) to record and present investigative evidence;

(c) to serve as the official record of trial; and

(d) to present a pre-taped trial to the jury.

For each application three primary topics are covered:

a general description of the role of video recording, a

review of known field experience, and a discussion of

problem areas which seem likely to arise and which will

need to be resolved. Sample video equipment systems for

each application will be suggested in Chapter IV.

VIDEO RECORDING TO RECORD AND

PRESENT TESTIMONY

One of the factors contributing to trial delay is

the difficulty in assembling all of the key participants

at the same time. For example, many cases must be

postponed because a witness fails to appear on time.

Furthermore, each delay increases the likelihood that

other participants will fail to appear at a subsequent

- 7 -
scheduled date: people become exasperated with an expensive

waste of time in court without any action. Scheduling is

especially difficult when an expert witness is to testify,

e.g., on some medical, technical or scientific matter.

Those who serve as expert witnesses are generally in great

demand as practitioners, hence court appearances compete

with other professional obligations, frequently causing

trial delay. In the past, the only alternative to the live

appearance of a witness in the courtroom has been the taking

of a written deposition for reading into the record during

the trial. Depositions are generally taken only if it can

be shown that the witness can not be present at the trial;

should the witness be available, the deposition is not

used. (Depositions may also be taken before trial as an

aid to discover what the nature of a witness* s testimony

will be.) A deposition which is read into the trial

record is usually much less effective than the testimony

of a witness on the stand.

Trial delays also tend to affect the quality of

testimony. The memory of an event dims over time? moreover,

it may dim selectively, so that certain features of the

event continue to stand out, while others (which may be

crucial to a realistic determination of what actually

happened) may fade away completely. By the time a witness

appears in court, his memory may be sufficiently weak that

the testimony is no longer worthwhile, or the witness may

- 8 ”
become distressed because his memory is not stronger, and

so fall easy prey to an attack on his credibility.

Video-recorded testimony (or depositions) for subsequent

presentation at trial would alleviate each of these problems.

If the equipment is available, testimony can be recorded at

the witness's convenience, either at a court location or in

a home or office. The witness could offer his testimony

within a short time of an event in question, circumventing

the effects of memory lapses.

Equipment might be provided initially by the court,

by a local attorneys' association, or by a private firm.

Depositions recorded on video tape could be stored in a

central location until the time of trial, or be kept by

the attorney. (Methods are available to prevent or

detect alterations made to the tape.) Fees could be

levied in a number of ways. For example, a flat fee could

be assessed, regardless of length of deposition, with the

tape supplied by the attorney. As an alternative, tape

could be supplied with the equipment, and the fee determined

by the length of the deposition. Deposition charges could

include both recording and presentation of the record in

court, or presentation could be a separate function, with

additional charges. Eventually, as video recorded depositions

are utilized more frequently, it is possible that the attorneys

themselves could supply the equipment and any necessary

accessories. Experience may be necessary before costs

- 9 -
can be determined, but $50 to $150 appears to be a

reasonable range for a deposition of one or two hours'

duration. Since an hour's testimony would produce about

forty pages of written transcript, the cost of an hour's

deposition by video tape would not be much more than the

cost of an equivalent amount of typed transcript.*

Video depositions are available immediately, with

no need to prepare a transcript. If the recorded deposition

later becomes part of the trial record (either in trans

cript or video form), or if the case never comes to trial,

the tape can be erased and reused.

Video recordings offer several improvements over written

depositions. Demeanor, tone of voice, uncertainty in response,

and other non-verbal aspects of the testimony are preserved,

and visual references (e.g. , pointing, drawing a diagram,

etc.) can be clearly shown. The advantage is further

underscored in the presentation of the recorded deposition

at trial. The current procedure of reading the written

deposition into the record is counter-effective in some

instances, since monotony of a single, disinterested

voice can be tiresome and may distract from the meaning

of the testimony. This is particularly likely to be the

case in the testimony of an expert witness, whose evidence

might tend to be tedious in the first place.

* Deposition transcript usually costs about $1.00 - $1.20

per page of original, plus additional cost for copies.

- 10 -
A potential disadvantage is that a witness who is

aware of the availability of video recorded depositions

may be less willing to appear in court, particularly if

testimony has already been recorded. In many cases now,

depositions are recorded in case the witness cannot appear;

traditionally, the witness 's appearance has been highly

preferable, and only serious events justify his absence

and the substitution of a deposition. If video depositions

should prove to be substantially better substitutes for live

appearance than written depositions are currently held to

be, the requirement for live appearance might conceivably

be loosened.

Video recording of depositions, while not at all in

widespread use, has been tried in several jurisdictions with

almost uniformly high success. As far as can be determined,

video depositions to date have been introduced almost

exclusively into civil cases; in some jurisdictions they

are permitted and have been used in criminal cases, but

the practice has been quite limited.

The first report of a video recorded deposition,

intended to be used in court, appeared in the legal literature in April 1969. In a civil suit for damages in an

accident case involving a bus striking a pedestrian, a court

John A. Nordberg, "First Evidence Deposition of Party

Taken ... Pursuant to Court Order," Chicago Bar Record , April 1969.

- 11 -
order was issued to permit the video recording of the testimony of the victim in the case; he was a man of advanced

years and the only witness in his own behalf. The case

was tried in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, where

video applications in the courts were already under consideration.

As an outgrowth of earlier experiences with video taped

depositions in Cook County, a pilot program has been initiated

recently in Bloomington, Illinois to establish a facility

for video recording of testimony as a routine procedure in

civil cases. Equipment for this program was purchased by

the state, with a taping studio in the McLean County Court

House in Bloomington and equipment operators to be supplied

by the court system. Intended initially for use by physicians,

plans include eventual expansion to provide the service for

other witnesses who might find it difficult to be present

in court. It is anticipated that the merit of the concept

will be sufficiently convincing to warrant local purchase

of new equipment for continuation of the program on a permanent

basis, thus making the initial set of equipment available for

introductory programs elsewhere in the state.

Video depositions have been used in at least two other

jurisdictions, having become fairly common in the Wayne

County (Detroit) area in Michigan. At least one commercial

firm has been established to provide video recording services

- 12 -
for the Wayne County legal community, including studio

facilities near the courthouse and three fully-equipped

trucks for mobile on-location video service. Despite

lower studio charges, the mobile units are highly in

demand and, apparently, rarely idle.

As one of its experiments with the use of modern

technology in the courts, the Federal Judicial Center

provided video equipment to record depositions for the

Federal Judicial District of Western Pennsylvania.

Depositions have been used in court, especially

the recorded testimony of physicians who were unable to

appear. The judge in those cases reports that "a video tape

presentation is far superior to the customary deposition

which is read to a jury. The difference between the two

is indeed startling".* A unique case, heard by Judge Weis,

demonstrates the impact of video depositions. In a trial

in which the depositions of two physicians were read, the

jury could not reach a verdict. During a second trial,

several months later, video taped depositions were used.

The judge reports that "The effect of seeing the witnesses,

making judgments of their credibility and accuracy depending

Judge Joseph Weis, Jr., "Video Tape", Remarks to the

Pennsylvania Bar Association, June 26, 1971, p. 1

- 13 -
on tone of voice, hesitancy in answering, facial expressions,

and general appearance cannot be overestimated. While the

juries in both trials were most conscientious, it was obvious that the attention of the jurors during the video

tape presentation was far higher than that of those who

had listened to questions being read ... In fact, I thought

it necessary to caution the jury in the second trial that

the video tape evidence should be given exactly the same

* weight as a live witness, no more no less”.

Judge Weis also reports minor problems, such as the

inability to handle objections satisfactorily. The adopted

procedure consisted of noting on the counter, which is part

of the recording head, the point at which an objection was

made; if sustained, the corresponding portion of the tape

would not be shown to the jury. However, the degree of

accuracy of the counters now attainable makes it difficult

to stop and re-start the tape precisely where desired.

Sound quality also proved to be a minor but noticeable problem.

As a direct follow-up to these experiences in the Federal

court in Pittsburgh, the Allegheny County Bar Association

has recently purchased video equipment for its members

Weis, Remarks, p. 1

-14
to obtain video depositions. The equipment is operated

by law school students and is available at all hours,

both weekdays and weekends. The base cost is $50.00

per depostion, regardless of the time involved, plus

$5.00 per hour for the operator. Tapes are provided, subject only to the provision that they be returned for reuse

when the case is terminated (including all appeals)

Although video depositions may have been used in

other jurisdictions, news of these experiences if any,

* has not been circulated. All known reactions have been

highly enthusiastic, especially after any initial skepticism

has worn off. Acceptance has been in civil, rather than

criminal trials, reminiscent of experience with other

electronic recording methods. Civil trials appear to be

more conducive to experimentation, and depositions are more

widely used for evidentiary purposes in civil trials than

in criminal trials.

As discussed earlier, some problems require resolution

before the video deposition technique is completely satisfactory (e.g., improved accuracy for excising objectionable

material from testimony and compatibility of recordings

across equipments). Other problem areas which need to be

For example, there is an oblique reference to video

depositions in Philadelphia in a court reporters' magazine

but with no detailed information available.

- 15 -
considered include procedural matters which can be resolved

by appropriate guidelines; equipment improvements and changes

in court rules or statutes to allow video depositions may

take more time.

As will be noted in Chapter III, in many states there

are prohibitions against some video applications in the

courts. Most of the emphasis is on courtroom recording;

this aspect does not affect depositions, which are usually

taped elsewhere. However, some court rules specify the form

of a deposition or the method of recording it, and these

would have to be altered if they explicitly or implicitly

proscribe video presentations

Among the procedural issues of concern is the method

of certification: written depositions are transcribed

and their accuracy attested by the stenographer. If

necessary, the video operator could appear and identify

himself on the record at the end of taped testimony to

certify that the record was supervised and is complete.

Although editing of a video tape is possible, integrity

can be maintained by any of several methods (e.g., making

a duplicate tape to be stored by the court, providing visual

time-line evidence, such as a clock face, etc.), one of

which must be adopted.

RECORD AND PRESENTATION OF INVESTIGATIVE EVIDENCE

Conventional police procedures in investigation

and the gathering of evidence in criminal cases rely heavily

- 16 -
on the policeman's memory and his ability to testify about

what he has witnessed. Still photographs are sometimes

used as supplements, but such pictorial evidence is

necessarily static and, of course, does not include

accompanying audio. Furthermore, recent appeals court

decisions have imposed stringent formal requirements for

police behavior with a suspected criminal, but evidence of

compliance is not usually directly available.

Just as recorded video depositions can bring testimonial

evidence into court, many types of police evidence can be

video taped and presented in court. It may also be possible

to video record some police procedures, thereby helping to

protect individual rights at arrest and during interrogation.

Video recording equipment can be sufficiently portable

for field use and may be used in recording police investigative activity. (Closed circuit television systems have for

some time been used as a deterrent to crime in banks and

other institutions concerned with security; a taping feature

serves to record a crime, should one take place.)

Among the field activities for which video recording

could provide meaningful evidence are traffic cases (in

particular, with regard to drunk driving, negligent behavior

- 17 -
etc.); search and seizure proceedings; surveillance of

suspected criminal activity; activity at demonstrations;

and many more. The dynamic quality of many of these

events makes video recording particularly effective as

evidence, since every detail visible to the police video

operator can be preserved. In other situations, video

records of physical evidence following commission of a

crime might provide better evidence than still photographs.

Portable video equipment usually has a relatively

short recording time (about 30 minutes) , but extra tape

reels are easily carried and tapes can be reused unless

the information is required for court presentation. Video

equipment (not necessarily portable) in police department

facilities can also be used to record interrogations,

line-ups, and statements, and to record the required

warnings for the protection of rights.

Various police departments around the country have

applied video recording in investigative matters. Video

recorders are being used in at least three jurisdictions

to record major traffic offenses and tests for intoxication

* administered on the scene. Curiously, video recording may

produce unexpected results when brought into court as evidence

* Wickliffe, Ohio; Astoria, Oregon; and Hermosa Beach,

California.

-18
In a case in New York City, a man failed a drunkometer test,

agreed to be video recorded in another series of tests, then

was acquitted by the judge, who thought he "looked good on

tape. "

The police department in San Jose, California, has

recorded a number of search and seizure raids, to demonstrate

use of correct procedures and to gather evidence. These

efforts are still experimental: the tapes demonstrate

that meaningful guidelines are needed to ensure that the

record is complete and unbiased.

The number of police departments which have either

portable or semi-portable equipment to record interrogations or witness' statements is not known. The admissibility

of a video-taped confession as evidence has been established

through appellate review in Florida, at least (see page 44).

Use of video recording in investigations necessitates

guidelines for the avoidance of deliberate or inadvertant

biasing by implicit "editing". The decision to record or not

and the choice of field of view is the editorial equivalent

of cutting out a portion of the record at a subsequent time.

Associated Press, "Drunkometer evidence loses to video

tape"

The Washington Star , n.d.

Tapes were shown at NBS Conference on Court Centered

Uses of Video Recording, see pages 57-59.

19 -
To date, video recording in each police department known

to be using it is generally limited to a single type of application (such as traffic cases). Other departments, of course,

may have taken a more flexible approach. However, if wider

use is made, questions of storage (e.g., how long to keep

evidence tapes, how to file and retrieve them, etc.) and

access (e.g., availability of tapes to defense attorneys)

will have to be resolved, including consideration of court

decisions and appeals. The equipping of police departments

will also be influenced by the method of presenting tapes

in court. Unless the courts have electronically compatible

* equipment, presentation of evidence will require that the

police recorder and a monitor be brought to court whenever

needed; the inconvenience might easily outweigh any improvement

in evidence.

RECORD AND PROVIDE

OFFICIAL RECORD OF TRIAL

A shortage of qualified court reporters frequently

results in transcript backlogs and long delays. Many court

administrators have consequently looked to electronic

methods as a means for relieving backlog conditions. A

computer system for translating stenotype notes has also

See pages 71-72 for further discussion of this issue.

- 20 -
been tested in the hope of freeing the reporter from that

portion of the transcript task. Audio recording has been

introduced in some courts, and transcript typists frequently

work directly from the courtroom tapes. This precedent has

led to consideration of video recording for making a record

of trial proceedings.

Video taping a trial is more complex than its audio

counterpart. Permanent installation (perhaps in several

adjoining courtrooms) is probably necessary, with a separate

monitoring area or room. Unobtrusive cameras can be mounted

on the walls at selected locations in each courtroom, with

a panel on the judge's bench to inform him of the status of

the recording system, and an optional monitor to depict what

is being taped. Assigned court personnel can monitor

pictures from the several cameras, selecting the relevant

view. They must also monitor the audio microphones and

maintain a detailed written log of the progress of the case.

In-court equipment might also include monitors for the

jury to view pre-recorded testimony, and additional cameras

may be placed in the judge's chambers for on-the-record

conferences there. Specific equipment requirements

depend on the characteristics of individual courtrooms.

- 21 -
Central storage is required for tapes and logs, and

duplicates should be available (at a fee) for attorneys'

copies or for viewing on court-provided video tape players.

The video portion of the record is accompanied by an

audio record, with microphones provided for the major

speakers (judge, witnesses, attorneys). Ideally, the

audio portion of the record should be recorded on multiple

tracks, but current video equipment allows for only single

track audio recording (or dual on one-inch format machines)

A supplemental audio recorder could be used, but some

difficulties with the synchronization of audio and video

records during replay under those conditions would be

expected

The rate of preparation of a typed transcript from the

tape would undoubtedly be slow, since none of the current

equipment is designed to permit easy "no-hands" start, stop,

and rewind. As an alternative, the video record may itself

be designated as the official record: this procedure is

now being implemented in Alaska. This might have profound

implications for much of the judicial system. The form and

content of appeals would both be changed, and there could be

substantial time savings in the filing of the appeal since

* See Chapter IV for further discussion of equipment

characteristics

22 -
the record is available immediately and lengthy written

briefs could be avoided. However, the opportunity to review

a visual record of trial, including demeanor as well as

words might well raise new legal questions within and about

the appellate process.

To date, pilot efforts to examine the feasibility of

recording trials by video tape have been concerned more

with the mechanics of taping than with a full-scale overview of operating a courtroom video recording system. For

the most part, tests have demonstrated that a video record can

be made, and the consensus is that that record is far superior

to that provided by a typed transcript. However, the experimental nature of these efforts has not permitted test and

resolution of the legal issues or the operational problems

of storage, access, etc.

Video equipment was first installed for recording

trial proceedings in 1968 in the Skokie courtroom of the

Second Municipal District of the Circuit Court of Cook

County, Illinois. Shortly afterward a similar experiment

was undertaken in the DuPage County Courthouse in Wheaton,

Illinois. Both experiments were authorized by the Supreme

Court of Illinois and were conducted by its administrative

office to determine whether a video taped record was adequate

compared to the written transcript.*

William M. Madden, "Illinois Pioneers Videotaping of

Trials", ABA Journal , Vol. 55, May 1969, pp. 457-460; William

M. Madden, Experimental Videotaping of Courtroom Proceedings , Chicago, Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, Nov. 1968.

- 23 -
The integrated system for these tests consisted of a

video recorder, monitor, three low light level cameras

(each with a separate monitor) , a remote control panhead

for one camera, and a sound system of four to six microphones

with a preamplifier to combine the audio signals. One camera,

mounted behind the judge on a motorized panhead, provided

a "judge's eye" view of the courtroom. Another camera was

mounted high up on the side wall of the courtroom, and was

trained on the witness and judge. A special effects generator

allowed the view from the second camera to be superimposed

in a corner of the larger view from behind the judge. The

third camera was placed in chambers to tape on-the-record

conferences. Trial records were made for one full week

each in the Skokie and DuPage courtrooms.

The judges who presided during the tests considered

the video tape method of recording trials a forward-looking

attempt to cope with the problems encountered when competent

court reporters are not available. Interestingly, the judge

in DuPage County, where competent reporters are plentiful,

felt that video recording is not an adequate substitute for

reporters. The other judge, confronted by a serious shortage

of reporters, observed that the video record "far surpasses

the court reporter's transcript or an audio recording of

the proceedings". He went on to say that there are "really

no serious difficulties, either technically or theoretically

- 24 -
with maintaining a complete record of all proceedings in

the courtroom by this method.

Predictions have been made that video recording of

court proceedings might lead to "acting", or to undue

concern on the part of courtroom participants. The

experience of these tests suggests that, on the contrary,

participants tended to act with more dignity when aware of

the presence of the camera, and that those who were constantly

in the courtroom generally forgot that the cameras were there.

Following these tests, the emphasis in Cook County turned

to developing video techniques for recording testimony. There

is no indication of further experimentation with video taping

to obtain the trial record for nearly three years. Then, in

November 1971, the State Bar of Michigan with LEAA support,

undertook a study of the feasibility of recording trials.

Equipment was installed in the Ingham County courthouse

in Mason, Michigan. Under the concept that the "best" record

would be from the jury's point of view, three cameras were

mounted above and behind the jury box. Two cameras were

located behind curtains; they could rotate and were equipped

with zoom lenses. Each was operated by a camera technician.

Hon. Harold W. Sullivan, "Court Record by Videotape

Experiment - A Success", Chicago Bar Record, April 1969,

p. 336 - 337.

Madden ," Illinois Pioneers", p. 459.

- 25 -
A third camera, on the wall above the jury, provided a

fixed-focus, full-room view of the proceedings. Monitors

showing the view of each camera, as well as one to indicate

what was being recorded, were located in a nearby room,

along with video recorders and back-up equipment. Two

6 technician in this adjoining room selected the view to be

recorded and kept a written log of events in the courtroom.

Seven trials (five criminal and two civil) were recorded

over a two-week period, each requiring 7-9 one-hour reels

of tape.

A pair of video recorders permitted continuous recording, and a panel of lights informed the judge of the status

of the system (e.g., when the tape was reaching the end).

As one tape was running, the second machine was started

with enough overlap to assure a continuous record.

Variable focus cameras and camera switching were relied

upon to present the complete trial picture; special effects

and split-screen devices were not used in these tests. Replay

•(If of the tapes provides an excellent picture indeed. Occasionally there was a very brief sound loss, e.g., when a speaker

cut in and the technician could not readjust volume levels

on the microphone control quickly enough to pick up the

unexpected voice.

The project leader for this study made two trips to

Michigan to talk to participants and to view the tape replays.

- 26 -
Since these explorations were experimental, the official

records of the trials were produced conventionally in all

cases in both Illinois and Michigan. The operational feasibility

of obtaining a trial record by video recording was demonstrated,

but it is not yet established that a video record would be

acceptable as the official record for appeal purposes.

The state of Alaska, which pioneered in adopting audio

recording as the official record of trial, is planning to

introduce video recording of trials in its busiest courts.

The rules governing the court record have been changed so

that video methods are acceptable record forms, and equipment specification and purchase is well along. Three

cameras are currently planned for each courtroom, with a

supplementary sound system and a video recorder with

camera view selection control through a special effects

generator. Records from this system will be accepted as

official as soon as it is in operation.

Many questions remain unanswered due to lack of operational experience in a courtroom environment. Legal issues

are yet to be resolved through appropriate review procedures,

including a determination of the acceptability of change

in the form of the court record, the access of the news media

to trial recordings, and the introduction of new elements into

the review process (such as the credibility of witnesses, etc.).

Procedural guidelines are still to be established, along with

mechanisms for tape and log storage and retrieval, including

- 27 -
attention to security aspects and record integrity. The

equipment shortcomings which make excision of objectionable

material difficult in video taped depositions apply equally

to video trial records. Furthermore , if tapes are to be

submitted for review on appeal, selective viewing techniques

are necessary lest appellate courts be forced to replay

an entire trial.

The introduction of video recording of trials is likely

to be subjected to many of the criticisms which were directed

at audio recording when the latter was brought into the

courts. However, the chief fears, of unreliability of

mechanical devices (where machine failure might result in the

loss of record) or concern about recording confidential,

off-the-record remarks or too much background noise, have

been of minimal operational concern in audio recording

experience

As of now, the cost of video recording relative to

other techniques appears to be the major problem. It is

difficult to assess the full cost of a court-wide video

system since a full system has not yet been installed

and tested in an integrated fashion. The initial investment

* • A judge interviewed during the course of this study

(see pages 5 7) indicated that, after reviewing the lawyers'

arguments on appeal, at least one judge on the appeal panel

reads the entire transcript to verify that the arguments truly

represented the occurrences at trial. Such lengthy review of

a video record might result in slowing, rather than speeding

up the appeal process.

- 28 -
in equipment and tape is high and, as has been noted, there

remains a need for m-court personnel to monitor and log

events. The cost of an hour's video tape is comparable to

the cost of an equivalent amount of conventional transcript.

The re-usability of tapes and efficient use of equipment

and personnel may keep the costs of video recording at an

acceptable level, considering that it furnishes the

advantage of rapid availability of the trial record.

PRESENTATION OF PRETAPED

VIDEO TRIAL TO THE JURY

The conceptual and demonstrated usefulness of video

recorded testimonial evidence may be logically extended:

if single elements of testimony are well presented to a

jury via video recordings, perhpas an entire trial might be

processed this way. A fully video-recorded trial was

initially suggested in 1970 in a lengthy, scholarly article

by Alan E. Morrill. The suggestion has been adjudged to

have merit, especially as a preferred alternative to

eliminating the jury trial, which has been put forth as a

drastic solution to congestion in the courts.

* Alan E. Morrill, "Enter - The Video Tape Trial",

The John Marshal Journal of Practice and Procedure,, Vol. 3,

1970 pp. 237-259. c/

- 29 -
A pre-recorded trial entails recording all testimony

on video tape, much as depositions are taken. Witnesses

can appear at their own convenience, and that of the lawyers.

Evidence can be initially taped in any order: the attorneys

may subsequently arrange the taped testimony in a chosen

order, and the full trial tape is then available for review

by the judge. At this first review, any objections of the

attorneys are noted and subjected to immediate rulings or

else taken under advisement, a luxury not possible in

conventional trials. If the objection is overruled, the

material is left on the tape, but reference to the objection

is removed from the tape. If the objection is sustained,

the relevant material is removed from the tape before it is

shown to the jury. Regardless of the ruling, a master tape

is maintained with all material, including objections and

objectionable evidence, and this master is available for

* appellate review. (It may be noted that both the tape

shown to the jury and the master are available as an official

record of trial.)

When the tape is ready and a jury has been selected,

the trial could begin with video monitors installed in the

* One authority has proposed that the review process

might be completed even before the tape is shown to a jury.

That is, appeals from the trial judges’ rulings could be

taken to the appellate court for resolution and the jury

called only when the tape was legally "right". Justice

Thomas E. Brennan, "Justice and Technology - 1997",

Michigan State Bar Journal, Vol. 50, March 1971, p. 150.

30 -
jury room or box. There are options for presenting opening

and closing arguments and the judge's instructions either

live or on tape. After viewing the evidence, and receiving

instructions, the jury might retire to consider a verdict,

perhaps without ever seeing the attorneys and the judge

in person, except during the jury selection process.

This procedure could eliminate virtually all nonfunctional time which now elapses in jury trials without

concerning the jury dirctly (e.g., waiting time, time

involved in arguing motions, etc.); actual trial time

might be cut down to one-half or one-thir that now re-

* quired. In addition, the jury would no longer be witness to objections and arguments over testimony, which are

potentially prejudicial, nor would they need to be instructed

to "disregard" something heard (which may be very difficult,

indeed, to "forget").

Although the concept of a pre-recorded trial has been

discussed for at least two years, most authorities felt

that implementation of such a radical notion would not

occur for many years. Judge James L. McCrystal of the

Judge James L. McCrystal, "Video Tape Trials",

The Ohio Bar , Vol. 44, No. 21, May 24, 1971, p. 640.

- 31 -
Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, Sandusky, Ohio, who had

proposed the video trial to avoid reducing the effectiveness

of the jury system, was provided with an ideal opportunity

to test the concept within six months of his initial

comments.* A trial case scheduled Sser in his civil court

involved a personal injury suit arising from a traffic

accident, but the plaintiff's medical witness could not be

available on the date of trial. It was first agreed to

record his testimony as a video deposition; then, after further

agreement from the attorneys, Judge McCrystal requested the

support of the Ohio Judicial Conference to pre-record all

evidence for the trial.

The plaintiff, defendant, witnesses, lawyers and judge

all appeared before the cameras over a two-week period,

although they did not need to be present simultaneously

and testimony could be taken in any order. It was also

unnecessary for the judge to be present during all the testimony was arranged by the attorneys and presented to the judge

for review. Objections were then considered, with appropriate

removals of material from the jury tape record when sustained;

a master tape was left intact.

* McCrystal , "Video Tape Trials .

- 32 -
After jurors were selected, .they listened to live

opening statements from the lawyers. The video recorded

evidence was presented on two large-screen monitors,

running for about 2 1/2 hours. Closing statements were

presented live, followed by the judge’s instructions on video

tape. The jury retired and reached a verdict on the same

day. Comments on the trial by the participants were

uniformly favorable. The lawyers cited the elimination of

potentially influential, but irrelevant, material from the

jury's version of the case* the opportunity for better

preparation through advance scheduling of witnesses and

full knowledge of the final case in time to prepare meaningful

statements to the jury; improved use of the court's and the

attorneys' time, the relatively relaxed conditions for witnesses and attorneys trying cases; and the reduction of the

risk of judicial error by allowing for sufficient consideration of points of law.

Judge James L. McCrystal, "Ohio's First Video Tape

Trial The Judge's Critique", The Ohio Bar , Vol. 45, No. 1,

January 3, 1972, pp. 1-4; Thomas J. Murray, Jr., "Comments

on a Video Tape Trial from Counsel for the Plaintiff",

The Ohio Bar , Vol. 45, No. 2, January 10, 1972, pp. 25-30;

Raymond N. Watts, "Comments on a Video Tape Trial from

Counsel for the Defense", The Ohio Bar , Vol. 45, No. 3,

January 17, 1972, pp. 51-56.

- 33 -
Interviews with the jurors indicated that they, too,

were favorably impressed. The trial was concluded in less

than half the time normally consumed, and the jurors felt

that they could offer a better verdict without having heard

objectionable material or the arguments pertaining thereto.

Witnesses cited their ease in giving testimony in the presence

of only the attorneys and the cameras.

As with any first effort, the trial was a learning

experience and not without minor problems. Viewing the

entire video record without a break and the placement

of the monitors both contributed to strain and fatigue among

the jurors' frequent breaks and better courtroom arrangements

were recommended. A small equipment problem caused voltage

irregularities which disrupted the picture occasionally,

perhaps because voltage regulators were not used. These

suggestions were also made: to vary the camera view from

time to time to relieve the monotony of a single picture

of one witness (equivalent to a juror's shifting his gaze

from a live witness) ; inclusion of a picture of counsel

from time to time, particularly when a new counsel takes

over questioning; and the possibility of recording witnesses

in settings (such as home or office) other than the courtroom.

McCrystal, "Ohio's First Video Trial," p.3.

- 34 -
With the apparent success of this first pre-recorded

* trial, Judge McCrystal is reported to be planning another.

The new case involves an accident at a railroad switch, and

it is hoped that some views of the accident scene can be

included in the trial tape. Plans have also been prepared

to initiate a pretaped civil trial as standard procedure

for six months or longer in a courtroom in Michigan.

Video experimentation in the criminal area is yet to

be tested. At least one major legal question pertains to

criminal matters: whether video presentation of witnesses

is adequate protection of a defendant's right to "confront"

his accusers. Although any taped testimony would include

cross examination by both attorneys, court tradition has

generally considered "confrontation" to mean a face to face

meeting, if only across the courtroom. Similarly, it may

be questioned whether the right to trial by jury requires

that the defendant be able to see and be seen by members

of his jury. These and related issues can be pondered

in advance, but only the appellate process can provide the

ultimate resolution.

Max Gunther, "Is Television the Answer for Our Crowded

Courts?" TV Guide , Vol. 20, No. 13, March 25, 1972, p. 10.

- 35 -
PERIPHERAL ROLES

AND RELATED TECHNOLOGIES

Education

Recordings of trials would make available realistic

examples of courtroom activity as an invaluable aid in

legal education. Many law schools now stage mock trials,

but law students have extremely limited experience with,

or participation in, actual trial activity. At best, a

student may occasionally observe in court; at worst, he

attains his degree without ever setting foot in a courtroom.

Tapes of trials or trial excerpts could be used to teach

trial procedure and to exemplify legal rulings when teaching

the content of law. As distinguished from courtroom observation, tapes can be interrupted for commentary, questions

or discussion. With sufficient equipment in the law

school, mock trials could also be taped and student

performance critiqued.

Trial tapes could serve to instruct newly-appointed

judges on courtroom procedures. Judicial clinics have

already staged mock trials which were video-taped, and

student judges have viewed and critiqued their own performance.

* "Judges See Themselves in Video Taped Mock Trials",

Judicature , Vol. 55, No. 8, April 1972, p. 347.

- 36 -
Actual trials have been filmed for educational purposes*

hence there is a precedent which may apply to video taping

for the same purpose. Legal access to the tapes will probably have to be determined by judicial ruling, but it may

be noted that proposed revisions to the ABA Canons encourage

such access (see page 48).

Related Technologies

In addition to video recording in the courts, several

types of court activity are amenable to the introduction

of related technologies; for completeness, they are briefly

discussed here.

Closed circuit television (CCTV) is very similar to

video recording systems (see page 65)the primary distinction being that the image is not retained for future reference.

There are situations however, where the recording feature

is not needed. Closed circuit television might be used,

for example, where retention of the record is not necessary,

but where court purposes are served by remote viewing. Thus,

testimony might be presented (in the temporal sense "live",

' At least one criminal trial has been filmed, and

broadcast over the National Educational Television network.

The films of that trial, involving a Denver Black Panther

leader accused of assaulting a police officer and resisting

arrest, were used as source material in the earlier TAD

study of computer translation in court reporting.

- 37 -
but by camera) by CCTV when a witness cannot be physically

present in the courtroom but is available for testifying.*

With the current state of the art, the witness would probably

be in the same building, for system connections over long

distances are difficult and expensive. As an example, a

witness might expect to be called in several cases in one

day, and could be available to testify from a central

location for any of the cases. This would be much more

efficient than shuttling among courtrooms.

There have recently been an increasing number of

trials at which disruptions have occurred. CCTV offers several features for aiding authority to control the disruption

and, at the same time, minimizing the forces required to

achieve control. In at least two recent cases, violent

behavior occasioned restraint of the defendant to prevent

disruption of the proceedings. Although restraint was

considered to be necessary, the resulting spectacle of

shackles and gags reflected unfavorably on the system of

justice, and may even have served the non- judicial purposes

of the defendant. As an alternative to physical restraint,

violent or demonstrative defendants might be segregated in

a separate, private room, connected to the courtroom via

It is an interesting indication of the expected public

approval of video in the courts that the remote testimony

of a witness via CCTV formed the central event in an

episode of a television series about a lawyer ("Owen Marshall,

Counsellor at Law", broadcast during the 1971-72 television

season)

- 38 -
CCTV and audio. A defendant would thus be allowed to continue

to participate in his trial, but would be unable to interrupt

the proceedings further.

Much as in banks, CCTV could be utilized as a security

monitoring system, serving to alert the appropriate authority

to any disruption in the courtroom. Officials coul^ be

dispatched as soon as a problem occurred, rather than remaining on-call in the courtroom to serve in the event of a

contingency. There would also be no overt indication that

interruptions are expected, of itself a possible triggering

mechanism for potential disruptions.

Another related technological application is the

Picturephone , a telephone system which provides both audio

and video connections, and which enables the parties to

hear and see each other. This system is currently available on a limited scale in a few cities, but should be

widely available in the future.

Although the engineering is still experimental, it is

possible to display the Picturephone video on a large

monitor screen, * whereas current screens are only a few

inches across: this would permit testimony to be telephoned

into a courtroom to be viewed by the jury. In a more

conventional application, lawyers and judges with Picturephone

It is also possible to adapt a home TV receiver to

carry Picturephone signals, and telephone calls have been

displayed on theatre screens as large as 12 feet square.

- 39 -
installations could resolve issues normally heard in court

or in the judge's chambers via Picturephone conference calls

from their offices. Direct interaction from remote locations

could save substantial time and cost. As an additional

feature, it is already possible to transmit document copies

via Dataphone lines and parallel connections would permit

nearly any type of business normally conducted in chambers

to be resolved during and as a part of regular telephone

calls

- 40 -
III. THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT

Possible barriers to the introduction of video recording

in the courts may derive from institutional constraints and

attitudes of members of the legal community. There are laws

and court rules which may limit the recording or reporting

methods for various court functions, and reluctance to accept

a new technology is often present in a usually conservative

system. The hypothesized applications of video recording in

the courts which are discussed in detail in Chapter II were

therefore examined in the light of existing laws and attitudes .The laws and court rules which have been examined apply,

primarily, to uses of video recording related to existing

court procedures. These include rules governing preparation

of the record of court proceedings and of depositions, and

rules limiting some types of recording in the interest of

preserving court dignity. On the other hand, presenting a

trial to the jury via video tape has been attempted only

experimentally; consequently, existing laws and rules may not

be germane except to the extent that some elements may be related to admissibility of recorded evidence or the record of

trial.

It is, of course, quite difficult to assess the attitudes of the legal community, so several approaches were

adopted to examine this subjective factor. Interviews were

conducted with several members of the judicial community in

- 41 -
the Washington , D, C. area to detect any categorical objections among people not familiar with the potential applications of video recording in the courts. In addition, a group

of people repesenting a wide constituency within the legal

community, but for the most part already familiar with video

concepts, were convened to discuss the full range of potential uses and to evaluate possible problems from disparate

viewpoints. Several trips were made to gain direct familiarity with selected experimental programs, and an effort was

directed at ascertaining reactions of the legal community to

innovations. Literature relating to these topics was also

collected with emphasis on both legal and general news

sources. Some general patterns have emerged from these approaches.

STATUTES AND COURT RULES PERTAINING TO

VIDEO RECORDING IN THE COURTS

Through general practice or in response to particular

problems, every state (and the Federal Government) has generated statutes or court rules to govern most court operations.

Current regulations relating to the introduction of video recording were researched through a survey of state laws and

court rules covering three major areas. Rules for court conduct are primarily concerned with the maintenance of decorum

and suitable dignity during court sessions. Thus, early experience with radio and television used for publicity led to

- 42 -
rules prohibiting broadcasting from the courtroom in many

states. Photography is usually included in this prohibition,

and, in some places, sketching or recording for any purpose.

Statutes and rules providing for a record of court proceedings or the taking of depositions have generally originated

from the need to specify the quality and form of an "acceptable" record of events. As will be noted below, the rules

may be applied to restrict or prohibit video recording although the concept of video recording was not envisioned when

the rules were structured.

One potential use of video recording, namely the presentation of recorded evidence or testimony at trial, may lie in

a legal area left, in the past, to the court's discretion.

Admissibility of evidence is generally decided by the judge,

subject, of course, to appellate review. Both sound recordings and motion pictures which relate to otherwise competent

* evidence are usually admitted into evidence. The similarity

of video recording in this context might therefore be expected

to lead to admittance. This use of video has already led to

contention, testing and the establishment of "rules" through

* * appellate precedent. In at least one case, a video-recorded

58 ALR 2d 1024; CJS Evidence, Section 711.

Paramore v. State, 229 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1969).

- 43 -
confession was ruled acceptable on appeal. It may be noted

that rather strict rules of "proper foundation" have in the

past been applied to the testing of admissibility, including

proof, for example, that recordings are what they purport to

be and have not been tampered with. It may be expected that

similar testing and strictures will apply to comparable uses

of video recording.

Details of the surveyed court rules and statutes are

presented in Appendix A. Every effort has been made to be

thorough, but the variety in format and the dynamic character

of the legislative process makes it nearly impossible to as-

• %

sure either completeness or currency.

A summary of the major features of state laws and rules

is presented for reference in Table III-l. Although there

are many locally unique factors , a number of general characteristics are evident.

All states specify that a record of court proceedings is

to be taken and preserved, and the pertinent rules or statutes

tend to reflect the environment at the time of passage.

However, some have since been amended. Many states specify

that records must be taken " stenographically " or by "mechanical

The survey was conducted using resources in the Washington, D. C. area, but which may not reflect recent changes in

state laws. The limited time and manpower available made it

impossible to include strictly local rules and statutues.

- 44 -
Table III-l

Summary of major characteristics of State laws or Court rules related to uses of video

recording in the Courts

Court Conduct Court Proceedings Depositions

broadcasting prohibited

Stenographic or shorthand req 1 d

(includes mechanical devices)

Stenographic or shorthand req 1 d . (includes mechanical devices)

Alaska

Arizona

California

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Illinois

Louisiana

Maine

Missouri

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Puerto Rico Vermont Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

No rules or statutes found

Alabama

Arkansas

Connecticut

Hawaii

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa Kansas Kentucky

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Virgin Islands

Wisconsin

Radio and television

discretionary

Colorado

New York

Electronic recording prohibited

Massachusetts

Alabama

Arkansas

California

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Iowa Kansas Louisiana*

Massachusetts

Missouri

Montana

New Hampshire

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Virgin Islands

Washington

West Virginia

Wyoming

*or any other recognized

manner Electronic devices allowed as replacement

Alaska

Arizona

Colorado

Connecticut

District

Indiana**

Michigan

Minnesota

Nebraska

Nevada

New Jersey

North Carolina

Tennessee Vermont

Virginia

**wording ambiguous but

seems to include

electronic recording

Electronic devices

allowed as supplement

Illinois

Kentucky

Mississippi

Oregon

South Carolina

No manner clearly specified

Maine New Mexico

Wisconsin

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

District of Columbia*

Florida

Georgia*

Hawaii

Idaho

Iowa Kansas Kentucky

Lousiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Missouri

Montana Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire*

New Jersey

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oregon

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota Tennessee

Utah Vermont Virginia

Virgin Islands

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

*"or other form of

verbatim recording"

Electronic devices allowed

Alaska

Colorado

Delaware

Georgia

Illinois

Indiana

Michigan

Missouri

No manner clearly specified

Connecticut

Minnesota

Mississippi

New York

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nothing specified

Maryland

Puerto Rico

- 45 -
means" (i.e. , stenotype) . Recently, a number of states

have enacted amendments to permit the use of "electronic

recording” (generally interpreted to mean audio recording

but frequently not specified as such) either as an "aid"

to court reporting by stenographic or mechanical means,

or as the main source from which the transcript is taken.

Alaska, reacting to a serious shortage of court stenographers,

now requires audio recording, designating the taped record

itself to be the official record; transcription is an option

for convenience only.

In developing rules of courtroom conduct, most states

have adopted or borrowed from the language of either Rule 53

("Regulation of Conduct in the Courtroom") of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, or from Canon 35 ("Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings") of the American Bar Association

Canons of Judicial Ethics. Both sources are clearly concerned

with maintaining the dignity of court proceedings (hence the

emphasis on "decorum" and "dignity"), lean toward the prohibition of "broadcasting" from the court.* They appear to have

been promulgated originally to curb the excessive disruption

While Rule 53 prohibits only radio broadcasting, most

of the states which have borrowed from that rule have

extended it to television broadcasting. Some have also gone

beyond both Rule 53 and Canon 35, prohibiting such things as

recording, or in some cases, the recording devices themselves.

- 46 -
and publicity surrounding a few particularly newsworthy trials

which occurred when radio was flourishing and television had

just been introduced. The language of these rules strongly

suggests that the "entertainment" aspects of broadcasting and

possible disruption of the court are the subjects of restriction, and not the recording itself.

The ABA is considering the revision of Canon 35 to qualify the prohibition against television and audio recording in

order to permit electronic devices for presenting evidence,

perpetuating the court record or for educational purposes.

Revision probably will not be formally presented to the ABA

membership until 1973, but its consideration may lead to

£

similar revisions at the state level.

* A tentative draft provides that the court should "prohibit broadcasting, television, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and its environs during sessions of

court or recesses between sessions, except that the judge may

authorize

1. The use of electronic or photographic means for the

presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of a record

for appellate review, or for other purposes of judicial administration . 2. The broadcasting, television, recording, or photographing of investitive, ceremonial, or naturalization proceedings . 3. The photographic or electronic reproduction by a

recognized educational institution of appropriate court proceedings for use exclusively in their curriculum. " (Judge

Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Remarks to the Penna. Bar. Assn., June

26, 1971, p. 5)

- 47 -
For the taking of depositions, emphasis has centered on

the rules of civil procedure. (In most states, the rules

on depositions in criminal procedures are adopted directly

from civil rules.) Deposition rules are fairly uniform across

many states, with many of them adopting or borrowing from Rule

30(c) ("Depositions upon Oral Examination: Record of Examination") of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 30(c)

provides that an officer of the court shall administer the

deposition, and that the testimony shall be recorded stenographically and transcribed. A recent amendment to a preceding

section of Rule 30 (30(b) "Notice of Examination: Non-stenographic Recording") provides that non-stenographic recording

means may be allowed by court order, provided that all parties

to the deposition are so notified in advance. This latter rule

is too recent to have been adopted by many states, but it sets

an important precedent.

As mentioned earlier, virtually all existing rules and

statutes were enacted before productive or judically efficient

applications of video recording in the courts were contemplated,

It may therefore be instructive to observe that, as the utility

of other forms of electronic recording in the courts was demonstrated, laws were amended to take advantage of new technology.

Similar changes will likely be applied selectively to video

recording. Such changes take time, however, and are often

carefully deliberated, but a trend in this direction has already started.

- 48 -
Where the rules or laws pertain to the accomplishment of

current court procedures for which the introduction of video

recording does not change the function itself (for example,

in recording and presenting depositions) , amendments can be

made straightforwardly without directly affecting other parts

of the judicial system. In fact, several states allow electronic devices for recording depositions, and depositions

have been presented by video tape in at least three jurisdictions .Some applications of video recording, however, may radically alter the judicial system's way of "doing business."

Video recording of trials to provide the official record

(without requiring a written transcript) or the presentation

to the jury of a video taped trial will effect drastic changes

in procedure throughout the system up to the highest courts,

undoubtedly requiring much effort and consideration before

accomplishment. In some states, however, perhaps prodded by

the near-crisis situation in the courts, proposals for change

centered on video tape applications are being seriously considered.

Alaska has , for a number of years , pioneered in adopting

electronic technology to courtroom use. When Statehood was

achieved, all courts in Alaska were brought under a single,

unified administration; the shortage of court stenographers

led to adoption of audio recording for making the court

record. Audio tapes are transported to a central location in

-49
Anchorage or Fairbanks for storage and, when requested, for

preparation of a transcript. Although transcripts are often

made as a matter of convenience for appeal purposes, the

audio recording is the official record and is available for

review on appeal.

The Alaska court system is exploring advanced audio

k equipment and is supporting the development of a prototype

system specifically designed for court applications. The

state is also preparing to install video equipment in its

busiest courtrooms for testimony and trial record purposes.

The court order which permitted the introduction of audio

recording has been amended to accept video recording too. In

a sense Alaska is unique, in that the ability to change procedural rules is simplified by its unified court system:

most states have a multitude of courts and jurisdictions,

the rules for each requiring change. The unified approach

has also led to all court procedural issues being defined as

court rules rather than statutes, the former being easier to

change

At least two other states are considering major changes

in court procedure to allow video applications. In Ohio,

where the concept of presenting a trial to the jury by means

of video tape was tested (see Chapter II) , an amendment to

the civil court rules has been proposed to provide that "All

of the testimony and such other evidence as may be appropriate,

may be presented at the trial on video tape,.." This rule

is initally intended to apply only to civil trials, and open-

- 50 -
ing and closing remarks, and possibly judicial instructions,

are still to be presented "live." However, the judge in the

case where this technique was tried foresees its application

* in criminal trials as "not too far off." Precedent may have

been established and criminal rules have traditionally been

patterned closely on civil rules. Unless rejected by the

Ohio Legislature, the proposed rule is scheduled to become

effective on July 1, 1972.

Experiments in Michigan with video recording to provide

a trial record in criminal and civil trials have proven sufficiently successful that appropriate amendments to the Court

* * Rules have been drafted. These tentative amendments have not

yet been formally considered, but they offer an interesting

insight into the impact that the adoption of a video record

might have on the entire judicial system.

Availability of an immediately usable video record of a

criminal trial could shorten the time allowed to file an appeal: 15 days is proposed, in contrast to the current 90

days. Similarly, the time limits for filing documents and

tapes to substantiate and to counter appeals would also be

reduced by over 80%, helping to expedite the clearance of appealed cases. Concurrently, it is suggested that decisions

may be handed down orally, within 20 days, with a written

opinion to follow "as soon as reasonably possible."

Judge James L. McCrystal, Letter to Richard T. Penn, Jr.,

January 28, 1972.

Douglas L. Sweet, "Video Taping of Trials", DRAFT, March 1972.

- 51 -
Rules governing the form of the appeal record would be

altered to require a duplicate video tape instead of a written

transcript. The form of the appeal itself would be changed

to require a concise "statement of questions involved , " followed by a "statement of facts" referencing the relevant portions of the tape in place of the conventional (usually lengthy) written brief. It has also been suggested that written

arguments be replaced by oral presentations.

The status and duties of the court reporter would be

changed to provide for a "video tape stenographer" responsible for monitoring, logging, and filing the video record.

These draft rules also specify minimum requirements for the

equipment system, including six-channel audio recording.

With the present state of the art, six-channel audio is not

possible within the video system, thus requiring an auxiliary

audio recorder.

The Michigan proposal is perhaps the most specific attempt to consider the implications of the adoption of video

recording for court procedures. Modifications are being

considered, and whether any version will be adopted is

yet to be seen, but it illustrates the range of procedures

which need to be considered or modified.

ATTITUDES OF THE LEGAL COMMUNITY

It was not possible within the scope of this study to

survey the legal community as to attitudes toward the intro-

- 52 -
duction of video tape recording. However, a number of project activities furnish insights into the "acceptability" of

video recording and indicate some likely sources of resistance, both logical and emotional.

The concept of "TV in the courts" is relatively new and

tends to catch the public eye. In some respects, television

as a broadcast medium has acted to discourage the introduction of the related medium for video recording in the courtroom. The dramatic events of television cases (such as

"Perry Mason" or "Divorce Court") create images of lights,

cameras and wires all over the courtroom, with histrionic

lawyers and witnesses, and forced, dramatic conclusions.

Such conditions are not only atypical, but nearly antithetical to conventional courtroom activity. It therefore becomes

difficult to examine the use of video recording dispassionately until one realizes the potential for unobtrusive cameras.

Thus, President Nixon appeared to be unfamiliar with existing

technology when he commented in a recent speech that "the

filming of judicial proceedings, or the introduction of live

television to the courtroom, would be a mistake. The solemn

business of justice cannot be subject to the command of 'lights,

camera, action.'"*

President Richard Nixon, Remarks to the National Conference

on the Judiciary, Williamsburg, Virginia, March 11, 1971,

p . 5

- 53 -
Legal consideration of bringing the camera into the

courtroom without violating either the dignity of the court

or the process of justice dates back several years. As

early as 1965, M. R. Doubles developed a serious argument

that even the use of television by the press would no longer

in and of itself violate the decorum of the court. The

acceptability of courtroom sound recordings had actively been

debated for several years before that.

As experimentation with video recording in the courts

began (circa 1968)the reactions published in the literature

were generally favorable, particularly from jurisdictions

where there were problems from transcript backlogs or trial

delays (caused by missing witnesses) . Where delays were not

troublesome and where courts were functioning smoothly, fancy

electronic equipment was considered to be too much trouble,

too expensive and "obviously" unnecessary.

During the past year there have been a growing number

of explorations of specific uses of video recording in the

courts, but evaluation reports have just begun to appear in

the legal literature. The earliest of these include

M. Ray Doubles "A Camera in the Courtroom," Washington

and Lee Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-16.

** Harold W. Sullivan, "Court Record by Video-Tape

Experiment — A Success," Chicago Bar Record , April 1969,

pp. 336-341.

- 54 -
critiques of the Ohio videotaped trial experiment, written

* by the judge and by the opposing counsel. In spite of

technical difficulties, the reactions to the Ohio test were

uniformly enthusiastic.

Direct interaction with pioneering participants reinforces the general finding that, after some initial skepticism, people in the legal system are sufficiently interested

in the concept, once introduced, to explore it further.

Several aspects of the Michigan experiment with the trial

record bear this out. The circuit judge who presided is nearer ing retirement and g,ive the outward impression of "countryconservatism; " he was not only willing for his court to be

used, but became enthusiastically convinced of the potential

for video trial records. Several months following the tapings,

selected portions were demonstrated to members of the Michigan

Bar at their mid-year meeting. Many of the attendees were,

essentially, merely curious? others appeared to accept the innovation in stride. The only substantive comments related to

the (as yet unresolved) issue of the relative cost for fulltime use.

As has already been noted, depositions have been video

taped regularly for more than a year in the Detroit area, and

the Allegheny County Bar Association in Pittsburgh has made

McCrystal, "Ohio's First Video Trial"; Murray, "Comments

Watts, "Comments."

- 55 -
video equipment available for depositions. The service in

both areas was quickly accepted after initial skepticism.

Three judges and two court administrators in the Washingtonj D. C. metropolitan area were interviewed (either by phone

or in person) to get initial reactions of officials without

prior direct experience with video recording. Initial skepticism, mainly about cost and practicality, tended to dissipate

as more information about potential applications was presented.

Several of these officials, involved with pressing court administration problems, suggested willingness to try almost anything which might relieve court congestion. This small group

may not be representative of the legal community as a whole,

but their attitudes indicate a willingness to consider new

technology, particularly where court systems are congested.

In another effort, a one-day conference was held at the

National Bureau of Standards. Individuals familiar with some

aspects of video oecording discussed potential uses and a realistic appraisal of the likelihood of alleviating court problems

It was hoped that guidance would be obtained with regard to

underlying needs and priorities for future work.

Conference attendees, listed in Appendix B, covered a

wide variety of functions within the legal community. There

were representatives of the appellate and trial bench, the ABA

These interviews were for exploratory purposes only.

Since no indication was given of the intention of subsequent

citation, individual interviews are not discussed here.

- 56 -
and other attorneys' organizations , and the police, as well as

other professions which interact directly with the criminal

justice system (e.g. , forensic scientists, court administrators,

court architects, etc.).

A brief summary of the conference is presented in Appendix C. Most of the specific uses of video recording in the

courts which were discussed were already under study as a

part of this project. However, perceived priorities formed

the essence of the discussion. Definite and immediate needs

were perceived for police work, recording and presentation of

testimony, and education. It was also emphasized that the

serious shortage of court reporters in many jurisdictions requires drastic action to reduce the transcript component of

the delays in getting trials to appeal. As a record of trial,

video recording was considered tc be reasonable, but widespread adoption for this purpose was by no means universally

recommended. It was repeatedly emphasized that video technology, like many other proposals, should not be expected to

serve as a panacea for all court problems. Since it is a

technology which is highly sophisticated and which may have

profound effect on the entire judicial system, radical changes

should be adopted only after careful consideration and analysis of implications for the future. Although many hard-pressed court systems may be tempted to adopt any technique

which offers the prospect of relief, individual problems

should be analyzed to determine not just if video technology

- 57 -
provides a solution, but whether it can provide the best solution.

There was clear consensus that presenting a pre-taped

trial for jury consideration is worthy of consideration for

the future, but immediate adoption was thought to be unlikely.

It is noteworthy, however, that the Ohio experiment took place

shortly after this conference.

As indicated earlier, most of the conference attendees

had already been exposed to the use of video for court-related

purposes, and many were predisposed toward accepting such applications. They made fundamental contributions in setting

priorities and in stressing the need for problem orientation;

these have served as a basis for much of the direction taken

in this report.

In all, there is some evidence of skepticism, but video

recording seems, in general, to be "acceptable" for selected

purposes; there are some objections, and some disagreements

on details. For example, court reporters are nearly united

in group opposition to any use of video recording for the

function which they perceive to be their responsibility.

Their concern pertains to depositions and the official records of trial proceedings, whether live or pre-taped for

presentation to a jury.

The situation is hardly clear-cut insofar as court reporting is at issue. Video recording was initially proposed

as a means for counteracting shortages of competent court

58 -
reporters. The latter are highly skilled, and their training

takes several years; in fact, the extensive training and

level of skill required may tend co discourage aspirants.

Were electronic methods to be widely or universally adopted,

and particularly if the requirement for a written record should

be changed, reporters 1 jobs would be threatened. (This possibility may also be discouraging to potential reporters.)

Although the introduction of video recording on a large scale

is not likely in the near future, expert reporters perceive a

threat to their security and are quite vocal in their opposition. This opposition is not negligible, for reporters are

well organized (in some states into formal labor unions) , and

are often associated in one-to-one relationships with judges,

perhaps an important negative factor, at least initially.

A timely example of the influence of court reporters

may be found in the report of the Electrical Recording

Committee of the National Shorthand Reporters Assn. at

their recent national meeting. Organized efforts in seven

states were reported to have been successful in defeating or

severely limiting legislative attempts to permit sound

recording as a reporting method in the courts. Proceedings , Seventieth Annual Convention , National Shorthand Reporters

Assn., New York, August 4-7, 1971, pp. 64-75.

- 59 -
IV. VIDEO RECORDING. EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS

Sophisticated and complex equipment is frequently available in a wide variety of formats, with many options and

characteristics; video equipment is no exception. Some video

recording systems cost only a few hundred dollars, but there

are also systems which cost many tens of thousands of dollars.

However, only a relatively small number of systems are suitable for any of several court-centered applications.

The more costly units of video equipment are primarily

those specifically designed for studio use (and broadcasting)

They are characterized by high resolution (i.e., highly detailed pictures), color transmission, advanced special effects,

and high quality (and therefore expensive) accessories.

Many of these characteristics present a level of picture

quality and signal strength necessary for the transmission of

entertainment, but not for court-centered uses; they also

tend to make the systems prohibitively expensive. Since

broadcasting is not desired for the court environment, very

high resolution pictures are not necessary, nor is color recording. (While relatively inexpensive, semi-portable color

recorders are available, the camera equipment is much more

complex and more expensive than that for black and white.

Color adds an additional level of detail, but little of significance to the information content of the record.)

In considering equipment for court use, the research

- 60 -
has therefore been limited to black and white "'professional

Q quality" equipment. This typ/- of equipment has been mainly

limited to industrial and educational applications , but witn

an introduction now for "home TV.

**5*

It uses one-inch or onehalf inch recording tape* whereas broadcasting equipment requires 2" tape. While both are considered here, emphasis

has been placed on one-half inch format equipment: it is

generally much less expensive than the one-inch equipment,

•k with little apparent difference in picture quality.

Further, one-half inch equipments the only format currently

offering interchangeability of tapes among different manufacturers 5 recorders (see pages 71f.), a factor which may be important for court applications.

The 1971 Electronics Buyers Guide lists approximately

forty manufacturers of video recording equipment, many of

whom deal exclusively with studio quality equipment. For

this study, a representative sample of the largest domestic

and foreign manufacturers of professional quality equipment

was contacted. A sample survey, although not systematically

* Definitive tests to measure comparative merit scientifically are warranted, but have not been part of this study.

** It is NBS policy not tc cite manufacturers or models

except where necessary for describing experimental procedures

and the like. The information here represents a range of

equipment available; potential users should "shop” among manufacturers for more specific estimates of equipment characteristics and cost.

- 61 -
exhaustive of all models, provided much information on

equipment features, relationships of characteristics to cost,

and technical considerations to serve as background relevant

to video applications in the courts,

OVERVIEW

This chapter addresses two main questions: What are the

major characteristics and associated costs of the types of video

equipment available to the courts? And, secondly, what are the

basic equipment requirements for each of the potential applications for video recording in the courts? A brief overview is

provided here to acquaint the reader with the names and basic

functions of system components , which may be less familiar than

the home TV receiver. More detailed descriptions of the operating characteristics of various models of each type of equipment and their court-centered utility will be discussed later.

For court purposes, the system is intended to make a

visual (and, usually, audio) record of some live event, and

to preserve that record so that it can be seen and heard subsequently. The basic requirement for this includes three essential components (see Figure IV- 1A) . First, a camera transforms the image of the event into electronic signals. Like

conventional cameras (for photography) , the video camera contains a lens, a picture recording device (normally a vidicon

tube) which converts light energy to recordable (electronic)

signals, and a camera housing. A synchronization mechanism

- 62 -
FIGURE IV

A. Simple video recording system

Camera

B. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

Camera

- 63 -
is required to orient the frame of the picture consistently;

this may be a part of the camera or a separate piece of

equipment

The electronic image is transferred from the camera to

a video tape unit which records the signals on magnetic tape.

The same recorder may also be used to play back the tape and to

recreate visual signals for viewing on a television monitor.

Audio signals travel in parallel with the video, being

picked up by microphones^ recorded on tape, and played back

through speakers. An audio/video system usually consists of

a single set of equipment: microphones may be attached to

the camera or separate, but the same unit records both audio

and video signals (with the audio on a separate "track") and

the playback monitor has integral speakers, though these may

also be separate. Since video recording conceived for courts

generally requires audio and video capabilities, the term

"video recording" will refer to both functions unless otherwise specified.

If the image of an event is only to be monitored, but

does not need to be recorded for future reference, the signals can be transmitted directly to a television monitor. A

direct viewing system is referred to as a closed circuit

television system (Figure IV- IB) , rather than video recording system.

In addition to the three major components, there is an

array of diverse equipment which can supplement the basic

- 64 -
system (see Figure IV-2). The microphone is, in a sense,

such an addition; if more than one microphone is used, a

microphone mixer is needed to monitor all the signals received and combine them for recording on a single audio track

Similarly, if more than one camera is in use, a camera switch

er is used to select the view which is to be recorded. Complicated combinations of video images can be achieved with a

special effects generator, permitting images to be faded in

and out, superimposed on one another or presented side-byside in a split-screen picture. Synchronization can be performed by a separate "sync" generator, and remote control devices are available both for cameras and video recorders.

Several general comments can be made about the equipment

discussed here. Despite the relative complexity of the electronics, operation of video recording equipment in the "professional quality" range is remarkably simple. For example,

many can be operated with only a couple of buttons or a

lever, once the routine for threading the tape is learned.

Special effects functions make the system more complex, but

generally no more difficult to operate than, say, a home

stereo system or color television receiver. Most manufacturers provide instructions and operational training

with purchase or lease of equipment. Peripheral activities

(e.g., equipment set-up, supplementary court logs, etc.,) may

be more difficult, but manufacturer's support is also frequently provided in these areas.

-65
Cameras FIGURE I.V-2

? i %

Complex video recording system

\q J

T

r

! ! **

L

P

4

ro

^

> Mic

Mixer |

Camera

j Switcher

or ^ Special

^Effects

: Generator

Video Recorder

V

or

r r d &

r

J

1

« L—

J

IV

- 66 - or .
Equipment maintenance, on the other hand, requires trained

technicians. Most video equipment is solid state and fairly

reliable. Major parts (tape recording heads, the camera's

vidicon tube, the monitor's picture tube) usually last

several years with proper care and usage, and minor maintenance

(head cleaning, etc.) can be accomplished by working personnel

with minimum training.

EQUIPMENT CHARACTERISTICS

Video Tape Recorders (VTRs) . Professional quality video recorders are manufactured to

use either one-half inch or one-inch recording tape: electronically, a more detailed picture can be recorded by the

one-inch system, but whether the difference in picture

quality is operationally significant for court applications

has not been examined directly.

Characteristics of representative models of one-half inch

and one-inch VTRs are shown in Figures IV-3 and IV-4 respectively. There are three major differences between one half-inch and

one-inch models generally, other than those of physical

dimensions

First, the investment cost of one-inch machines is four

to five times that of the one-half inch models. Secondly,

most one-inch format VTRs offer two-track audio recording,

* Scientific comparison of picture quality was not possible

during this study. While most people who have used video

equipment for court-related purposes express satisfaction

with picture quality on one-half inch equipment, at least

one user is committed to one-inch equipment on the basis of

a perceived picture quality improvement.

- 67 -
Characteristics

of

Typical

One-half

Inch

Format - 68 -

11x30x18?

75 j

60 J

yes j

yes |

yes {

no !

auto

no

yes|

J1300
Characteristics

of

Typical

One

Inch

Format

Video

Tape

Recorders

69 -
whereas only single track recording is available on one-half

inch models. Single track audio recording, wherein signals

from all microphones are combined and recorded on one track

of the tape, severely limits flexibility, especially as

compared to existing multi-track audio systems. (Wherein

signals from different mics are recorded on separate tracks

and can be listened to separately.) In court applications,

single track recording could lead to occasional distortion

of the audio record. Two-track audio would be better, although

with only one or two speakers in a court situation, a single

track is probably adequate, and with four or more speakers

even dual track would probably be insufficient.

The third difference is that there is a lack of uniformity in recording technology among manufacturers of the oneinch format, and manufacturers of one-inch equipment individually determine recording parameters. The most blatant indication of lack of standards is the variety of speed of

tape movement (inches per second) . In fact, even equipment

with the same listed tape speed may not be compatible if made

by different manufacturers. The operational result is that

tapes recorded with one manufacturer's equipment must be

played back on identical equipment to obtain a true picture.

Tapes played on "foreign" machines produce excessive vertical

roll and horizontal instability. If tapes are exchanged among

equipment owners (for example, depositions made on a private

firm's machines, but played on court-owned machines during

- 70 -
trial) , this need for nearly identical equipment is a serious

limitation on total system flexibility.

It should be noted that not all one-half inch models

are compatible and, until recently, they differed among manufacturers as well. However, in August of 1969, the Electronic

Industries Association of Japan promulgated a standardized

specification for recording characteristics of one-half

inch VTR equipment which most Japanese manufacturers have

adopted for at least some of their VTR product lines. A

number of manufacturers are now producing one-half inch VTRs

for which tapes can be interchanged regardless of manufacturer.

These companies also produce non-standard equipment, but

the availability of a variety of standardized equipment

provides greater flexibility wherever several users are in-

** volved with more than one piece ot equipment.

As will be noted from Figures IV- 3 and IV-4, most VTRs

provide an hour's recording time (on 7-inch reels of tape in

the one-half inch format and 9-inch reels on the one-inch

format) , and allow audio "dubbing ,, and stop motion. Audio

dubbing permits audio to be recorded separately from the

'pCf'-f'ionS

video , but is of questionable utility and acceptability for court operations. In fact, this may be a disadvantage

* Details of the EIAJ specification are shown in Appendix D. ** Although the EIAJ standard has not been formally accepted

outside Japan, the Japanese manufacturers produce the bulk of

the professional quality one-half inch recorders available in

this country at the present time, so standardized equipment

in the one-half inch format is widely available here.

71
since it enables tampering with the audio record. Conceivably,

the audio record might be recorded separately, perhaps on a

multi-track audio recorder, and then transferred to the video

tape. However, this would entail extra time to accomplish the

transfer and would not likely synchronize the audio and video

portions perfectly. Stop action (or still framing) allows the

tape to be halted without losing the picture reference; a

single "frame" remains on the screen, much as a movie film can

be stopped. This feature would be useful for educational purposes, but is probably unimportant otherwise.

Major optional features include automatic gain controls

for both audio and video recording (some of which also allow

manual override to accommodate to greater variability in signal strength) , and electronic editing capability. Automatic

gain maximizes the likelihood of recording all aspects of an

event with minimum operator interaction. Electronic editing,

which adds substantially to cost, would be important for

many court applications where editing records for presentation to the jury is required. Conversely, the ability to

edit may also contravene security of the tape via unauthorized

tampering. However, other precautions can be taken to minimize

this risk (see page 16 ) . Other options include attached playback monitors, remote

control devices, automatic rewind capability, and adaptors or

internal mechanisms to allow the video record to be played

back through a conventional television set. In addition, some

- 72 -
"VTRs " are designed as video players only, and do not offer a

recoding function. These assure easy viewing without risk

of interference with the record.

Since the available equipment was originally designed for

other functions, it is highly likely that, to obtain features

required for a particlar court application (say, the editing

function) , the prospective user may have to pay for other features of little benefit (e.g. , slow motion)

Cameras

The simplest video cameras have fixed focus, lack a viewfinder and require external synchronization for recording purposes; at the other extreme, highly sophisticated cameras may

be multiple-lensed and have viewfinders which also serve as

playback monitors. Typical cameras are described in Figure

IV- 5.

The synchronization function is a vital part of the recording system. The "sync'' mechanism stabilizes the picture

frame for recording so that the electronic impulses start at

the same point for each succeeding picture frame; it may be

integral to the camera or there may be an external sync generator. If part of the camera, the cost of the latter is increased by about 60 - 75%, comparable to the cost of an

external sync generator ($175)

Most cameras provide automatic light level compensation

(in a sense analogous to the "electric eye" controlled shutter

on conventional cameras) , which provides a clear picture over a

- 73 -
Figure IV-5

Characteristics of Typical Video Cameras

Mfg. Model Light

Compensation

Sync Viewfinder Standard

Lens

Size

( inches)

Wt.

(lbs.)

Other Approximate

Cost ($)

1 Auto Ext. no 16mm Fl .

5x5x14 7 C-Mount 350

2 Auto Ext. no 16mm Fl .18x6x22 32 tripod, 395

microphone

carrying case A 3 Auto Ext. yes 4:1 F2 :

18x6x22 39 695

4 Man

Ext

no 16mm Fl .4x4x10 5 250

5 Auto Int. no 16mm Fl .5x5x14 7 450

1 Auto/Man

Int./Ext. 5" 2 5mm Fl .

7x9x13 20 Auto Monitor- 750

ing Capacity

B 2 Auto/Man

Int . /Ext

no 25mm Fl .

3x6x11 8 400

3 Auto Ext. no 16mm Fl .6x4x11 5 230

1 Auto Ext. no 2 5mm Fl .6x3x10 9 300

2 Auto Ext. no 2 5mm Fl .

5x3x10 6 375

3 Auto/Man

Int. /Extno 2 5mm Fl .

6x3x11 8 450

A Auto/Man

Int . /Ext

no 2 5mm Fl .

6x3x11 3 Designed for 500

light conditions

5 Auto/Man. Int. /Ext. 6

" 25mm Fl .

10x7x13 20 Audio Moni~ 745

tor ing

6 Auto/Man

Int ./Ext. 6

" 5:1 Fl . 8 Zoom

10x7x13 2 0 1445

1 Auto Int ./Ext

5" 5:1 Fl .

Zoom

11x7x14 16 1295

2 Auto Int. /Ext

5" 4-Port

Turret

7x6x14 33 1895

D

3 Auto Int . /Ext3" 2 5mm Fl .

9x4x16 13 .550

4 Auto Ext. no 2 5mm Fl .

7x4x11 7 450

5 Auto Int . /Ext

no 2 5mm Fl .

7x4x11 7 625

6 Auto Ext. no 16mm Fl .

5x4x10 6 300

- 74 -
range of light levels? some models also permit manual adjustment. Most cameras operate satisfactorily at or above nine

foot candles (less than normal room light) , and a few are designed for operation at very low light levels (comparable to

twilight)

Unlike conventional cameras, not all video cameras are

equipped with viewfinders? the latter may add as much as $300

to the cost of the camera. If a monitor is available to view

the picture being taped, a viewfinder is not necessary, nor

would it be if the camera is not directly controlled by an

operator. Some viewfinders not only show what the camera

sees, but also serve as a playback monitor to review what has

already been recorded.

Other than a viewfinder, few video camera accessories are

really necessary. Tripods and travelling cases are available,

rc\ and so^e cameras have a standard "C-mount" for the lens, permitting the use of any lens so equipped. ("C" is a standard

mounting size for film camera lenses.) Cameras may also

be equipped with built-in or attached microphones, and

some include a jack to monitor audio pick-up.

Monitors

Monitors vary in screen size and may be monitors

alone or also function as television receivers. The receiver

characteristic is distinguished by a speaker for playback

of the audio portion of the video tape and service as a

conventional television set.

- 75 -
Figure IV-6

CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL VIDEO MONITORS

Manufacturer Model

Screen size

(diagonal

Audio

Dimensions

HxWxD

Weight

lbs. Other

Approx.

Cost

A 1

t

| 9" yes 11x10x11

! n j — : 195

2 r

!1 11" yes 12x12x12 18 f

! 230

A 3

I 18" yes 16x2x13

| 50 250

A

—4 22"

?L yes 20x26x14 76 j 295

B 1

'l* 5" no 6x6x10 r

10 ; 175 •

3 2 8" —yes 9x10x11 19 lL

275

B

i 3

l ; 9" yes 11x11x9 j 15 !

! L

Auto, gain

control

150

t o 1 B

j 4 9" —no 11x11x9

r

15 i

| 130

B 5 14" yes 17x12x11

i, 22 \ Auto, gain

control

200

B 6 ; 18" yes 22x16x15

1 36

i ... 250

B 7 28" yes sn !

i 350

C 1

l 11" yes 10x14x11 16 ;

' j 180

C 2

j

19" yes 17x23x15

i 42 l

. 250

C 3 5 1/2" no 7x6x11

t

«• 10 ? 170

D

{ 5" no

' 1 6x6x13 • 11

. : L

i 245

i) 2 l1 9" no 10x9x10 13

! 195

D 3

1 12" , yes 12x16x9 18 }

\ 220

D

4 I 19"

L

yes 20x20x14 55

i

j 250

D

1 5 2 3"

j yesj 20x20x14 i 66j Auto, gain 350

I f _J L

i —

I control

- 76 -
Typical monitors are described in Figure IV- 6. The primary determinant of cost in either of the two types of monitors (monitor alone, or monitor-receiver) is screen size.

Several manufacturers also oroduce consoles with three moni-

/ tors (usually with a five 4 or six-inch diagonal screen) in

one cabinet. These consoles cost about $500, or about $50

less than three separate monitors of the same size. These

consoles usually consist only of monitors and have no audio

capability.

Portable Video Systems

Each major manufacturer of one-half inch recorders offers

a fully portable version consisting of battery-operated recording unit, a camera with viewfinder and microphone, and

associated carrying cases. Typical systems are described in

Figure IV- 7.

Recording time on the portable systems is generally half

that of the full size half-inch recorders. This limitation

was necessary to reduce the size of the system sufficiently

to make it portable. (The whole system, camera and recorder,

weighs only a little more than 20 pounds.) Most systems

have a zoom lens as standard equipment, and several include

(or have as optional equipment) adaptors to permit the system

to operate on standard electrical current (and to recharge

the batteries.)

In addition to halved recording time, portability incurs

a sizable dollar cost beyond that of equivalent non-portable

systems, but these penalties must be paid to meet any require-

- 77 -
Characteristics

of

Typical

Portable

Video

Recording

Systems

o-03GP

CO

Cm<MW

to to to

G) G) G) >1 >1 0g X </> o — LD LD o in P P cr\ LO cn

Oj

w CM co ro

Pu 0 rH 1—

r-

rH < CJ

tn “ G X G -H >H O

GJ 0 X <D P? cd GJ P G -H X G - 53 X G

gj 0 P G 0 CD O >i 0

x: -COO X G >1 P as X

-p cue CU 0 P GJ Q r-i CU o 0 0 0 X 0) & a, o P p4 *H P CUP P O P 0 0^ O P P <d U 0 o P P G •H (fl (d ,C W G *H s w e S GJ X O 2 ~ £

to £ e £ £ G 0 0 c o

GJ 0 0 0 0

PI

N

N

N

N p

GJG

•H to CO to to

M-l GJ G) GJ GJ s >i >i >i >i

GJ •H I JQ P G id fd

GJ •H <1) <H

-P id -p

CU to to P G -P Cd

rd 0 GJ GJ C rH G >

TS G t>i G O X <d <

CJ< • • • • to to CO to p Si X! A X X rH rH rH rH

tn •H rH in i—

rH

GJ CM CM CM CM 5

GJ£ • • e e •H r*M G G c

Eh •H •H •H -rH £ £ £ £ O CM o o o

CD &

ro CM ro CM - 78 TM
ment for field work. However, most portable systems are

manufactured to meet the EIAJ standard specification for

one-half inch recorders, so tapes recorded in the field can

be played on any standardized recorder.

Peripheral Equipment

Some peripheral equipment and accessories (recording

tape or microphones, for example) is necessary for ail applications, and additional equipment may also be necessary,

particularly if more than one camera is used.

/ Figure IV-8 indicates the cost, by length and recording

time, of several typical brands of good quality video recording tape, including a five- or seven-inch plastic reel,

and a storage box. Although quantity purchasing might reduce this cost, a substantial investment in tape will undoubtedly be required. Properly stored at 50 ± 5% humidity

and 70 ± 5 degrees F temperature and rewound occasionally

during long storage to reduce strain, the tape will stay in

good condition for well over a year (perhaps 5 years or

. * more) and can be reused many times.

Interview with Chief, Information Processing Technology

Division, N.B.S., concerning storage properties of computer

tape (similar to requirements for video tape) . Concern has

occasionally been expressed that control of magnetic influaices would be necessary to ensure the integrity of the tapes.

This concern is unfounded: a small magnet will not affect re

cording tapes unless it is brought directly in contact with

the tape, and a junk-yard lifting magnet must be within 2

feet of the tape to have any effect.

79 -
Figure IV-8

Characteristics of Typical Good Quality Video Recording Tape

Width Length (ft.) Rec. Time (Min.) Approx. Cost ($)

1 / 2

" 380 10 10

1 / 2

" 845 20 15

1 / 2

" 1240 30 22

1 / 2

" 2370 60 40

1

" 1250 30 39

1

" 2460 60 60

- 80 “
Characteristics of typical microphones are shown in

Figure IV-9. The primary choice is whether pickup limited

to a single direction is required, or if the microphone is

intended to pick up sound from a broad area. Both unidirectional and omnidirectional microphones can be obtained in a

wide range of prices, with portable (clip-on) microphones

which reduce background noises (wind, etc.) costing most.

If several microphones are in use, a preamplifier or

microphone mixer is required to combine the signals for recording on the audio track of the video tape. Such devices,

for up to four inputs, can be obtained in the $50 - 100

range. Extension cables for microphones, available in a

number of lengths, cost from 12 C - 16C per foot.

The camera switching function, if required to select the

view to be recorded, can be performed by a simple camera

switcher or by a more complex and flexible special effects

generator. Characteristics and approximate costs of these

accessories are given in Figure IV-10. Camera switchers

only route inputs to the recorder (or viewing monitor) from

one or another camera; the primary cost determinant is the

number of cameras which can be controlled. Special effects

generators accomplish the switching function, as well as

more sophisticated picture-handling techniques, such as

superimposing pictures in a split-screen effect, fading

from one picture into another, replacing one picture with

another by wiping the second picture across the first, etc.

-81
Figure IV

Characteristics of Typical Microphones

Mf g. Model Directionality Other

Approx

Cost ($)

A 1 Omnidirectional Cable, Tie Clip,

Wind Screen

$200

A 2 Unidirectional Flexible Arm,

Wind Screen

200

A 3 Unidirectional Wind Screen,

Mic Stand

30

A 4 Unidirectional Wind Screen,

Mic Stand

50

A 5 Unidirectional Cable, Wind

Screen, Low Noise

100

A 6 Omnidirectional Mic Stand 14

B 1 Omnidirectional 10

B 2 Omnidirectional 20

B 3 Omnidirectional 20

C 1 Omnidirectional Mic Stand 50

- 82 -
Figure IV- 10

Characteristics of Typical Video Accessories

Special Effects Generators

4fg. Model Inputs Outputs

Super

impose Fade Wipes Switch

Approx.

Other Cost($)

A 4 4 yes yes yes yes invert one 595

channel internal sync,

gen.

B 3 3 yes yes yes yes 500

C 3 1 yes yes no yes 500

C 3 3 yes yes yes yes 500

D 1 2 2 no no yes yes 350

D 2 4 4 yes yes no yes 290

D 2 4 4 yes yes yes yes 590

Camera Switchers

Mfg. Model No. of I nputs Approx. Cost ($)

A 1 3 45

B 1 3 30

B 2 £ 50

C 1 3 30

D 1 4 70

D 2 8 120

D' 3 12 140

- 83 -
Split screen pictures may be the primary special effect for

court centered use. (Although simultaneous views of two or

more court participants in a video recording would be informative, the additional operator expertise necessary has not

been fully tested in court use.) Special effects generators

can also route signals to different monitors.

Other available accessories which do not merit detailed

discussion here, include remote control pan heads for camera

mounting (approximately \% 1 5 6j) , and adaptors to permit playSpecific equipment requirements depend on the method of

operation contemplated and on the configuration of the courtrooms or other recording sites. In order to suggest the

general magnitude of the equipment investment, some typical

systems are described below. It must be stressed, however,

that specific equipment configurations should be considered

carefully for each individual application at a local level.

Manufacturer's representatives are usually willing to provide advice and instructions, and several may be contacted.

Depositions and Testimonial Evidence

Video recording of testimonial evidence under ordinary

conditions involves only two or three speakers and takes

place under nearly ideal recording conditions, namely in a

small area, with minimum background noise or movement.

Equipment requirements are minimal: in the simplest case,

back on a standard television receiver

TYPICAL SYSTEMS FOR PROPOSED

COURT-CENTERED APPLICATIONS

- 84 -
a camera (with internal synchronization or an external sync

generator), microphone, and video recorder would be adequate.

An electronic editing function is required to excise objectionable materials. A second camera and microphone and a suitable

switcher and mixer, might be useful in deposition recording,

but the operator's task would be more difficult.

In order to play back taped testimony to a judge or jury,

one or more monitors would be required. The size of the

monitors depends on intended use: a 6-9 inch diagonal set

would be adequate for one close-by viewer, such as a judge

reviewing the tape for objections, whereas jury viewing

would necessitate using a larger monitor, or perhaps two.

The configuration and approximate cost of a typical deposition

system is indicated in Figure IV-11.

Presentation of a video recorded trial . Although more

testimony would be taken for a full trial than for depositions, possibly increasing the number of camera-VTR-microphone

systems required, the basic system configurations would be

the same (see Figure IV-11) . If testimony is to be taken in

the field (at the scene of the event in question, for example) , a fully portable system could be used, or provision

could be made to equip a mobile unit with standard size video

recording equipment. While the portable system might be initially more convenient, its shorter recording time would require frequent tape changes. Setting up the standard sized

- 85 -
Figure IV-11

Configuration of Video System

For Testimonial Evidence

Camera

)

Mic

J

i { }

I - Video Recorder

1

Monitors

Estimated Cost

1 camera with internal synjir $ 450

1 VTR with editing 1000

2 monitor /receivers 500

1 mic 50

$2000

“8 6 -
(the portable system can

it system takes about 10-20 minutes , be operational almost immediately) 9 but a full hour of testimony can be recorded on each tape reel. It should be noted

that portable systems do not include electronic editing

capability, but those which are manufactured to the EIAJ

standard permit subsequent editing on any standard size VTR

built to EIAJ specifications.

Collection and Presentation of Investigative Evidence.

Field use to collect evidence through surveillance of search

and seizure would , for the most part, require a fully portable video system. Such systems are self-contained, operating on batteries and including all the basic components required for an audio /video record. They are limited to

relatively short recording times (30 minutes) , perhaps requiring additional reels of tape to complete the evidence.

Special surveillance requirements (long term, low light level,

or from a distance) may best be accomplished with more specialized equipment. For example, some VTRs are capable of timelapse recording, in addition to conventional real-time recording, in which periodic segments of events can be recorded and

. “to . _ then also be Incorporated ir^ the primary record.

The mobile unit operating in Detroit utilizes standard

sized one-inch format equipment, and requires no more than

20 minutes to set up in a home or office.

- 87 -
periodic surveillance over as much as 12 hours can be "condensed" onto an hour's reel. The frequency of expected use

of such specialized equipment is the determining factor regarding feasibility of purchase.

Video recording to provide the record of court proceedings . Recording and preserving the official record of trial

proceedings is the most complex application of video technology, and entails the heaviest investment in equipment.

Configuration of a typical video trial record system is

shown in Figure IV-12, with three cameras (one with fixed

focus and two with remote controlled zoom lenses) : four

monitors (one to indicate the view of each camera and one

showing what is being recorded) ; and two video recorders

with electronic editing capability. (Two recorders provide

continuity of record without interrupting proceedings to

change reels.) A full system might also have additional

monitors to show pre-recorded testimony to jury members,

the judge and attorneys. Video testimony can be presented

on these monitors can be presented with an additional video

recorder plus a switching mechanism to transmit the picture

and sound to the several monitors; it can simultaneously be

transferred directly to the primary system for inclusion in

the official record. A fourth recorder can generate a

working tape which is a duplicate of the primary record, but

which can be rewound if a portion of the record is to be

"read back." The process of the "read back" function would

-Wien Q\$o e i nCo r'P°C.

£g 3

^_^ 1 ^ f-cccf- o

&
Figure IV- 12

imeras

Configuration of Video System

For Making Trial Record

Video

1 jDist.f

L

Video

Dist

51

f—m

»

Est. cost

j M/R j | |vt/R|

| jM/Rj

Jury

rJudge

3 cameras with internal sync

4 monitors (m)

3 monitor/receivers (m/R)

2 monitor/receivers (M/R)

1 camera selector

4 VTRs with editing

2 audio video distributors

0

0

0

0

0

0

$450,

200 . . 1

0 • • 350. . 45. . 1000 .

audio system (mics and mixers)

- 89 -

!J4/Rj lM/p!

Attorneys

$1350

800

540

700

45

4000

700

$8135
Playback Applications

Playback only systems (a playback VTR plus a medium

size monitor) can serve limited court-related purposes, such

as educational aids (several monitors might be required for

presentation to a full class) and access to tapes when

constituting the official trial record. Playback-only

VTRs cost approximately $500; monitor/receivers add perhaps

$200-300 each. The number of player-monitor combinations is

entirely a function of estimated level of use.

Additional System Costs

In addition to the equipment, there are system costs for

tape, storage, and personnel for running the video system.

Valid estimates of these peripheral costs are difficult to

make at present. Although a number of pertinent experimental

projects have been conducted, no full-scale system has been

implemented, and experience is still lacking with regard to

efficient scheduling.

As guidelines to costing, it is estimated that a full

day’s video trial record would require a little more than

one cubic foot of storage space, or just under 2/3 of a

shelf-foot. At $40 per hour (the cost of one reel of tape)

tape costs alone would be $240-280 per day. (This daily cost

would not be incurred indefinitely as the tape could be reused

after cases are completed.) Necessary personnel include

video equipment operators, clerks in charge of storage and

- 90 -
retrieval, and maintenance technicians, and additional costs

may occur if duplicate tapes are required.

An initial estimate of full scale introduction of video

technology in the courts would seem to suggest that while

the time savings for many of the participants might be substantial, the cost of a full application would be considerably more than existing procedures cost. However, it must

again be stressed that actual experience has been limited

to single, limited applications, and the magnitude of the

real time savings (and its related cost savings) has not

been seriously estimated. Further field application of a

full scale system is necessary before a complete cost/benefit

analysis is possible.

- 91 -
V. SUMMARY AND NEW DIRECTIONS

This study was initiated in July of 1971 to explore the

feasibility of using video technology to improve court procedures and to reduce congestion in the courts. It was

largely intended to serve a survey function and to summarize

in one document current knowledge about three major topics:

• availability of video recording equipment systems and

their suitability for court purposes?

• legal environment and attitudes affecting video recording in court-centered applications? and

• recent or on-going implementation of video recording

in courts on an operational or experimental basis.

At the time this study was initiated, video recording in

the courts was not much more than a topic of conversation.

Only the Illinois court system was known to have experimented

in this field and it was proceeding deliberately in a well-defined application.

During this past year, in parallel with but not caused

by this study, experimentation or adoption of video recording

has been attempted piecemeal in a number of jurisdictions.

Some concepts were envisaged a year ago to be in the distant

future, but have already been tried and even accepted, not

only by the legal community but by the general public as well.

As often occurs with new technology, the spate of activity and publicity about video in court processes may lead to

counter-productivity and, possibly, negative effects, some

- 92 -
of which may be avoidable with systematic technological assessment. In spite of the serious (indeed critical) problems

facing our court systems and popular appeal of "TV in the

courts," it should not be assumed that all video recording

applications are equally beneficial, or that a device which

"works" in one jurisdiction will be equally useful in others.

The survey conducted during this study points up the

need for a problem-centered perspective. There are many important court problems, and each must be evaluated to determine whether video recording (or, for that matter, any other

technical invention) is the BEST possible solution.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn:

1 . Video recording may be used in several ways to provide limited, immediate help in reducing congestion in the

courts and in improving the "quality of justice.

However

,

most applications to the courts to date have been experimental and fragmented. Systematic field application under coni trolled conditions is necessary to evaluate technological impact and relative costs.

2 . Particular applications of video recording have proven their value and are now acceptable' methods of presenting

evidence in some courts . Video depositions save much waiting

time for witnesses and serve the convenience of all parties,

and the quality of presentation has been improved by reducing

the nervousness of appearing in court. Increasing police use

- 93 -
to record events which may be criminal and interrogations of

suspects or witnesses may aid in solving crimes and in

obtaining convictions, as well as protecting individual

rights

3 . Although criminal trials are not now recorded for

educational purposes, there is demonstrable need for such

educational tools which should be satisfied as soon as

possible . Video recording would not interfere with the judicial process, and taped trials would offer an unequalled

opportunity to improve legal education. Broader experience

with trial activity while in law school might also have the

side effect of interesting more law students in trial law

as a career.

4 . Any applications of video recording which would mark-

• /i edly alter present procedures and functions should be approached systematically and with caution . On the surface, video

recording manifests the potential of reducing backlogs and

improving trial and appellate procedures, but there are legal

issues to be resolved systematically. Video recording should

be adopted when it offers the best solution to a given problem, with care taken to minimize unwanted side effects.

5

Video recording equipment has been designed mainly

for institutional or educational uses, and therefore may not

have the ideal features for court purposes . After further

experience in court activities, performance requirements

should be developed for a court-oriented video system, and

- 94 -
manufacturers should be encouraged to modify products specifically for court use,

6 . Statutes and court rules relating to video recording

in many state courts are out-of-date and cumbersome. The

lead of the Federal courts should be followed by amending

rules and allowing greater flexibility in introducing new

technology . Legislatures and courts, like other institutions

which are adapting to new technology, should stress the

development of performance criteria for designated functions,

rather than specifying the precise methods for accomplishing

those functions.

Video recording has been partially accepted in limited

applications. There are indications of high potential for

the future, and great interest in further investigations.

However, more work is required to insure efficiency and

cost effectiveness.

FUTURE RESEARCH EFFORTS

As a guide for future work, a number of proposals have

herebeen developed and are presented aee. These are in the form

of "research packages," and most of the described programs

should be operational tasks conducted under systematically

controlled conditions. Practical applications of video technology should be implemented and evaluated, with awareness

and assessment of the technological impact; with methodical

and clearly defined resolution of legal issues; and the prevention or minimization of adverse effects on the judicial

- 95 -
process

Each of the informal study proposals described on the

following pages contains a brief background statement, a

description of the tasks to be performed, and a preliminary

estimate of program cost. Each is designed as a viable

study, presented here to suggest an appropriate direction

for future work.

1. CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFORMATION ON VIDEO RECORDING IN

THE COURTS.

The introduction of video recording equipment represents

a major investment in money, time, and effort. To date, experiments with video techniques have usually been local in

scope and funding, and have not received much outside attention. The experience gained in one jurisdiction may not be

directly transferable elsewhere, but information should be

made available nationwide in a standard format.

A national clearinghouse could make information available

to all jurisdictions interested in video recording for their

courts. Based on experience gained in other locales, they

could then adopt practices which appear to be most suitable

for their own purposes. Funding would be required initially

to establish the information files and to staff a consulting

service for court planners, but part of the cost would eventually

be covered by charges for services rendered.

The following steps are proposed:

1. Conduct a survey of police departments and court systems in major metropolitan areas to determine current utili-

- 96-
zation of video recording in court-centered applications and

plans for the near future. (This study has laid the groundwork, but new programs may have been introduced without attracting wide attention.)

2. Conduct site visits and in-depth interviews with

participants in those programs which appear to have the

greatest generality, or which have unique or special characteristics .

3. Establish a central data file on ongoing programs,

to be periodically up-dated and to be made available to

interested officials.

2. FIELD APPLICATION OF INTEGRATED VIDEO SYSTEM

Among the proposed uses of video recording in the courts,

three major applications may meaningfully reduce the time invested in trials and other court procedures: taped presentation of evidence and testimony; video recording to provide

the official trial record; and, ultimately, taped presentation

of trial evidence in toto to a jury. These might save court

and public time by reducing delay in obtaining court records;

by minimizing inconvenience to witnesses, attorneys and

judges in scheduling court appearances; and by eliminating

or shortening jury waiting during trial episodes from which

they must be excluded. To date, experiments in implementing

video tape recording in the courts have generally dealt with

single, fairly narrow, applications within local court systems. However, it is clear that many applications overlap.

- 97-
The high investment cost for a full video system in the

courts strongly recommends an integrated field test to work

out specific operational/procedural requirements; to clarify

the pending legal issues; and to establish an optimal environ

ment for the clear resolution of legal conflicts which accompany innovations in the judicial system.

Technological innovation in the criminal courts must ensure that there will be minimum disruption of the administrate I tion of justice while providing maximum opportunity to reduce

system delays and improve court procedures. Within these

restrictions, the proposed study is designed to: (1) establish an integrated, operational video tape recording system

in one or more specified criminal court jurisdictions; (2)

operate that system over an extended period of time; (3)

conduct thorough research to clarify relevant legal issues

and to protect the rights of all parties to criminal proceedings; and (4) identify case parameters which will most likely

lead to appropriate and deliberate appellate review, especial

ly concerning the aspects of video tape recording which bear

on constitutionally-protected individual rights.

The following tasks are proposed:

1 . Selection of appropriate jurisdictions for field

applications . Utilizing background obtained during the

current video project, as well as additional sources and recommendations, jurisdictions which would be amenable to immediate implementation of a video system for court-centered

- 98 -
use should be reviewed to determine (a) potential for substantial impact for video applications to reduce court congestion and related problems , and (b) the likelihood of support from the local judicial/legal community for such administrative and legal innovation* One or more jurisdictions

will then be selected for the study*

0~\ ion

2 . Examine specific' legal and procedural issues surrounding proposed video applications *

3 . Define video equipment system requirements * a/hon

4. Install; operational video tape recording system ,

io<? ^ Ion 5 . Monitor| Jand direct,^'extensive field application of

video system *

3 * ‘ PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT FOR

COURT-CENTERED VIDEO EQUIPMENT

When a new use is conceived for an existing techno logy

,

the available equipment has generally been designed for entirely different purposes or environments. Court use of

video equipment systems imposes capability requirements which

are not met by existing equipment, but most of which are undoubtedly within the state of' the art*

After systematic and extensive field experience with an

integrated video system (see 2 above) , specific performance

requirements should be developed for court-centered video equipment. These requirements should be used to solicit proposals

for the development and testing of prototype video equipment

tailored for court applications.
A number of modifications already appear to be necessary

for court adaptation, including the following:

• capability for multi-track audio recording with the

video record;

• a playback head to permit the operator to monitor what

has been, rather than what is about to be, recorded;

• improved method of indexing the tape so that specific

segments can be located rapidly and accurately;

• record duration of more than 60 minutes per reel of

tape;

• "built-in ,, assurance of the security of the tape against

tampering (unauthorized editing, etc.); • improved playback compatibility among machines made by

different manufacturers;

• foot controls to activate forward and rewind functions;

• reduction of taped information to smaller storage records.

A prototype development and testing program would include

the following steps:

1. Develop specific performance requirements for court

video tape equipment.

2. Solicit statements of qualification from interested

video recording equipment manufacturers.

3. Prepare and distribute appropriate requests for proposal solicitations for the development and testing

of prototype equipment.

4. Evaluate proposals and award prototype development con-

- 100-
tract

5. Develop evaluation criteria for field test of prototype equipment*

6. Perform engineering evaluation and field test evaluation on prototype equipment.

4. EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF COURT PROCEDURES UTILIZING

TRIAL TAPES AS STIMULI

Video recording to provide the trial record (or to preserve events for educational purposes) would generate a large

library of “real-life" trials. These tapes would permit the

conduct of systematic and scientific research for experimental

resolution of issues which, in the past, have dictated resort

to judgment alone. Experimental evidence could be obtained

regarding widely held controversial notions, never tested

directly, about how courts function. This could also help to

evaluate methods for improving court operations and assess

the likely effects of implementation. Such experimentation

is unavoidably artificial in some respects, but the results

may shed light on court processes hidden until now by virtue

of the nature and inherent protectiveness of the system.

The aval lab liiity of a sizable number of tapes of criminal

trials would facilitate a variety of research programs, some

of which are suggested below. This list is not exhaustive, nor

is any particular approach the only one which could be taken.

But these proposals are suggestive of the range of systematic

&

examinjtion of controversial issues which a tape library makes

possible.

-101
a. The predictability and consistency of jury decisions.

Video tapes of individual trials, selected to reflect a range

of "clear-cut" to "highly debatable" evidence of guilt, can

be shown repeatedly to different juries to determine the factors which contribute to predictability of verdicts, consistency of juries (for varying levels of uncertainty of evidence)

and the manner in which juries reach a verdict (e.g., does the

process vary with jury characteristics, and if so, how?).

Interviews with members of the mock juries and systematic observation of their deliberations, neither of which can effectively be utilized with real juries.^ can supply extensive primary

and supplementary information about the operation of the jury

system.

b. Determine "optimum" jury size . Several jurisdictions

are experimenting with smaller juries than the traditional 12-

member panel. Selection of an alternative size has been arbitrary, usually set at six, but no systematic research has been

conducted to deduce optimality. Some significant and relevant

psychological research has been done on the pressures and influences affecting agreement or disagreement within groups of

various sizes; this can be tested in a jury context to determine what smallest size behaves "differently" from a group of

12 for given types of cases. Video tapes of trials could be

shown to juries of varying size, observing outcomes and deliberative procedures, to discover if there is a point at which the

roles and relative influence of individual members differ from
those of a jury of 12. This research assumes, for the present,,

that the 1 0 -member jury is a good standard in terms of justice,

but perhaps not siz^? that issue itself may be susceptible to

investigation with the availability of trial tapes.

c . Determine what effect, if any, derives from exposure

to irrelevant or improper information during trial . It is

commonly believed that juries cannot totally "disregard" something already witnessed when instructed to do so by the judge,

but the operative effect of such memories has never been tested

and documented. Video taped trials can be presented to experimental juiies with and without questionable material to determine the subsequent effect on the verdict. Using video tape

for presenting evidence or a full trial to the jury makes it

possible to eliminate all objectionable material in advance.

A test of the value of this procedure should 4be conducted

scientifically, especially to discern any noticeable changes

in verdicts.

d . Determine the effect of pre-trial publicity on jury

verdicts . In important or newswortny cases, juries are

often sequestered to prevent "contamination" from publicity

about the case. Similarly, news about a case is frequently

limited by officials until it comes to trial. There is controversy about both limitations. First, jurors are seriously

inconvenienced, or the jury may be biased by virtue of excluding those who cannot be sequestered. This might affect attitudes about the defendant, perhaps blaming him for the j_ n

- 103 -
convenience suffered. Restricted publishing of pre-trial

news raises the question of the cons i tutional rights of a

free press, as well as the public’s right to know. Video

taped trials would permit systematic examination of the effects

of publicity, perhaps leading to reduced restrictions or substantiation of their imposition. For example, information

about the defendant’s arrest and incarceration may have no

more effect on a jury than does his appearance in court for

trial. On the other hand, journalistic accounts of events

may be at variance with the case which can actually be proved,

but may affect the jury to the detriment of the defendant.

None of these hypotheses has ever been directly tested.

Each of the research efforts suggested above is a

package in itself. Depending on the number of variables to

be studied, the experiments could take as little as a few

weeks if a relatively straightforward question is studied

(e.g., does a six-member jury operate and react differently

from a 12-member jury?) or require a year or more to investigate a range of complex, interconnected variables (e.g., the

effect of different types of pre-trial publicity for various

types of crime.) Very few experimental investigations have

been conducted in this field, hence the numeber of possible

inquiries and parameters to be considered is extremely large.

- 104 -
Appendix A

Summary of Statutes and Court Rules Affecting the Use of

Video Recording in the Courts

In an effort to determine existing harriers to the

introduction of video technology in the courts, a survey

was conducted of State and Federal statutes and court

rules which mention television or electronic media, or

which pertain to areas of potential video application.

The research was carried out in law libraries in the

Washington, D. C. metropolitan area during the late summer

and early fall, 1971; subsequent reviews were made to try

to keep the findings up-to-date.

The laws and rules are summarized in the following

pages; for each state, the laws are presented under three

general headings.

1. Court Conduct includes summaries of those rules

which define appropriate behavior and decorum in the court

with respect to the publicizing of court activity. Based

to a great extent on the American Bar Association's Canon

35 which state that broadcasting from the court should

not be permitted, many states explicitly ban television

from courtrooms. In some cases, the emphasis on broadcasting does not extend to other court-centered video

applications; in other cases the rules are ambiguous,

or may apply to any video usage.

- 105 -
2 . Court Proceedings summarizes those statutes or

rules which define the requirements for the recording of

court proceedings. Current practice requires that

written transcripts be obtainable, and in many cases the

precise method of recording is specified. Some states,

but not all, have adopted electronic devices or accept

them as a permissible method for recording; Alaska alone

requires electronic devices (audio or video) , with the

taped record itself serving as the official record.

3. Depositions , or testimony taken prior to trial

for discovery or for presentation at trial, are governed

by rules or statutes which, to a great extent, are based

on the deposition rules of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. A 1970 amendment to the Federal Rules permits

the use of recording methods other than stenography, but

that amendment has not yet been widely adopted by the

states

Every attempt has been made to conduct a comprehensive

and accurate survey, but it cannot be considered as exhaustive.

It was not possible to examine local rules (e.g., at the

county level) without a prohibitive investment in time and

travel. Similarly, in dealing only with the resources

available in the Washington, D. C. area, complete assurance

of currency is not possible: laws and rules are subject to

change, but notice does not always arrive quickly. (It may

also be observed that changes in the laws and rules of

-106
interest here have been encouraged by recent Federal

precedents.) This survey has therefore been designed to

provide an overview of the legal situation surrounding the

introduction of video technology. Further research at a

local level would be desirable before any action is taken

in a given jurisdiction.

- 107 -
Appendix A

\

. Summary of Statutes and Court Rules Affecting the Use of

Video Recording in the Courts

As a part of the effort to determine the exising

barriers to the introduction of video/'technology in the

courts, a survey was conducted of statutes and court rules

at the state and Federal levels which mention television

or electronic media, or which are concerned with areas

of potential video applicatio. The survey was conducted

in law libraries in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area

in the late summer and early fall, 1971, and subsequent

reviews were made to try to keep the findings up-to-date.

The laws and\ / rules are summarized in the following

pages; within each state, the laws are presented under

three general headings.

/ 1. Court Conduct includes portions of those rules

which define appropriate behavior and decorlm in the

court with respect to the publicizing of court activity.

Based to a great extent on the precedent of the American

Bar Association's Canpn 35 prohibition of broadcasting

from the court, many states explicitly ban television

from the courts. In some cases, the emphasis on the

broadcasting aspect is sufficiently explicit that courtcentered video applications would not be covered, while

in other cases, the rules are ambiguous or specifically

ban any video usage.

2. Court Proceedings summarizes those statutes or

rules which define the requirements for the recording of

court proceedings. Current practice requires that written

transcripts be obtainable, and in many cases the precise

metho by which the notes are to be taken is specified.

Some states have adopted electronic devices as one permissabie method for recording, but many do not permit

them. Alaska stands alone in requiring electronic devices

(audio or video) exclusively and by defining the taped

record itself as the official record.

3. Depositions , or testimony taken prior to trial

for discovery or for presentation at trial, are governed by

rules or statutes which to a great extent are based on the

deposition rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A 1970 amendment to the Federal Rules permits the use

of recording methods other than stenography but that

amendment is still too recent to have been widely adopted

in the states.

- 108 -
It must be noted that while every attempt has been

made to conduct a comprehensive and accurate survey, it

cannot be considered as exhaustive. It was not possible

to examine strictly local rules (e.g. county rules)

without a prohibitive investment in time and travel.

Similarly, in dealing only with local Washington, D. C.

resources, it is not possible to be entirely assured of

currency; laws and rules of this sort are subject to

change (and recent Federal precedents encourage that

change) but notice of such changes does not reach the

national level quickly, thus, the survey provides an

overview of the legal situation surrounding the introduction of video technology, but further research at a

local level would probably be necessary before action is

taken in a particular jurisdiction.

- 109-
FEDERAL

COURT CONDUCT

U.S. Code

Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure (1966)

Rule 53 - Regulation of conduct in the courtroom

The court shall not permit the taking of photographs

during judicial proceedings or the radio broadcasting of

judicial proceedings.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

U.S. Code

Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure (1970)

Chapter 49 - District Courts

Section 753 - Reporters

(b) Court reporters shall record verbatim. The means of

recording may be shorthand or "mechanical means which may be

augmented by electronic sound recording."

Electronic sound recordings are considered admissible

evidence for establishing the record of proceedings on

arraignment, plea, and sentence in a criminal case.

If proceedings on arraignment, plea, or sentence in

criminal cases are recorded by electronic sound recordings,

the court reporter must certify them.

DEPOSITIONS

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 - Depositions upon Oral Examination

(c) Record of Examination; Oath; Objections

An officer of the court shall administer the taking of

testimony at a deposition. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the testimony shall be taken stenographically and

transcribed. Any objections shall be noted by the officer

upon the deposition.

Rule 30 - Depositions upon Oral Examination (1970 amendment)

(b) Notice of Examination; Non-stenographic Recording

The court may order that the testimony taken at a deposition be recorded by other than stenographic means, in which

- 110-
case the court must designate the alternative means of recording by court order. Provisions may be included to

assure that the recorded testimony is accurate and trustworthy.

-Ill-
FEDERAL: Local District Rules

COURT CONDUCT

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Local Rules of Practice

Rule 5 - Photographing or broadcasting of judicial proceedings . The taking of photographs in any form and the broadcasting or recording for broadcast by radio, television or other

means are prohibited in the courtroom in connection with any

federal judicial proceeding, regardless of whether or not

court is in session. (This rule does not apply to the use of

"Xerox and other copying machines.") Photographs or recordings may be permitted by the court if made under the direction of counsel and provided they meet any conditions imposed

by the court.

Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of

California

Rule 29 - Conduct in Courtroom and Environs

All forms of photography, tape recordings, broadcasting,

or televising are prohibited in all courtrooms during the

course of any judicial proceedings, regardless of whether or

not court is in session. This rule does not prohibit recordings by a court reporter, provided that such recordings are

not used in connection with any radio or television broadcast.

In addition, the court may permit photographs of exhibits to

be taken under the direction of counsel.

Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

(San Francisco)

Rule 10

The use of radio and television equipment is prohibited

in all areas where photography is prohibited.

- 112 -
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois

Appendix V

Rule 28

The taking of photographs in the courtroom and radio or

television broadcasting from the courtroom are prohibited.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Rule 34

Same as Rule 28 for U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Illinois.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

Rule 8

Same as Rule 28 for U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Illinois.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago)

Rule 18

Same as Rule 28 for U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Illinois.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Rule 17

The taking of photographs and radio or television broadcasting of judicial sessions are prohibited.

U.S. District Court for Maine

Rule 23 - Photographs , Radio and Television Broadcasting

The taking of photographs and the use of radio, television, or other broadcasting facilities anywhere in the Federal Court Building at Portland are strictly prohibited.

- 113 -
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Rule 29 - Photography, Recording, Broadcasting

No person shall take any photograph, make any recording,

or make any broadcast by radio, television or other means,

during any court proceeding. This rule does not prohibit

court reporters from making voice recordings in the course of

performing their official duties.

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

Rules of Procedure

Rule 7 - Fair Trial - Free Press Directive

Same as Rule 29 of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri

Rule 25 - Photographing, Broadcasting and Televising in Courtroom and Environs

Audio or video tape recording and radio or television

broadcasting are prohibited in any courtroom, except during

specially designated ceremonial proceedings.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

Rule 11 - Trial Publicity

The taking of photographs in and broadcasting or televising from the courtroom are not permitted.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

Rule 11 - Photographs and Reproducing Court Proceedings

The transmission or sound recording of court proceedings

for broadcasting by radio or television is prohibited.

- 114-
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina

Rule 5 - No Photographing, Televising, or Broadcasting of

Court Proceedings

Same as Rule 11 of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

The taking of photographs and the use of radio or television broadcasting equipment in the courtroom are prohibited.

- 115-
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CANONS

OF JUDICIAL ETHICS

COURT CONDUCT

Canon 35, effective January 1, 1970

Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings

The court should not permit the taking of photographs

during judicial sessions or the broadcasting or televising

of court proceedings.

This restriction shall not apply to the broadcasting or

televising of portions of naturalization proceedings if such

proceedings are designed to be ceremonial in nature.

- 116 -
ALABAMA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Code of Alabama

Title 13, Section 262. Duties of court reporter.

The official court reporter shall attend the court sessions in the circuit for which he is appointed and take full

"stenographic notes" of the oral testimony and proceedings.

DEPOSITIONS

Title 7, Section 474(11)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 117 -
ALASKA

COURT CONDUCT

Criminal Rule 48

The court shall not permit the taking of photographs in

the courtroom during judicial proceedings, or radio or television broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Rules Governing the Administration of All Courts

Rule 47 - Electronic Recording Equipment - Official Court

Record - Responsibility for Record

(a) "Electronic recording equipment" is to be used for

recording all proceedings required by rule to be recorded.

These electronic recordings constitute the official court

record. Each superior court judge has the responsibility of

insuring that the electronic recording equipment in his

court will produce a readable record of all proceedings.

(b) Before any proceedings are commenced, the presiding

judge is responsible for insuring that the electronic recording equipment is functioning properly. The judge shall require the clerk or deputy clerk to supervise the operation of

the equipment and constantly monitor all input. If any doubt

arises as to the clarity of the recording, the judcre is responsible for insuring that the pertinent portion of the proceeding is repeated.

(c) The courtroom clerk or deputy clerk is responsible

for the maintenance of detailed, accurate, and legible written records of all proceedings recorded on magnetic tape.

These written records are to be maintained in a manner consistent with the instructions established by the Administrative Director of Courts.

(d) The Administrative Director of Courts has the responsibility of establishing proper techniques for monitoring

and transcription. In addition, it is his responsibility to

insure that magnetic tapes and written logs are preserved for

at least five years.

- 118 -
(e) The Administrative Director of Courts may authorize

the use of "videotape equipment" to record any proceeding

where the use of such equipment is feasible. The videotape

record would then constitute the official court record.

DEPOSITIONS

Rule 30 (c) (Modified)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The testimony at a deposition shall be taken stenographically or by electronic recording equipment, and transcribed,

unless the parties agree otherwise.

- 119-
ARIZONA

COURT CONDUCT

Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona

Rule 45, Adoption of Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Association

The Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Association shall be approved and adopted as the Canons of Judicial Ethics for the State of Arizona.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Arizona Revised Statutes

Title 12, Chapter 2

Section 12-223, Attendance at and report proceedings

(A) The court reporter shall make "stenographic notes"

of all oral proceedings before the court. However, he is

not required to record arguments of counsel to a jury or to

the court, unless requested to do so by the court or counsel

Title 38, Chapter 3

Section 38-424, Use of tape recorders or other recording devices

The court may use "tape recorders or other recording de

vices" in lieu of reporters or stenographers unless either

party requests the presence of a court reporter or stenographer .

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30(d)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 120-

'
ARKANSAS

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Arkansas Statutes

22-352 Duties - Contents of stenographic report

The stenographer shall make a “stenographic record" of

all oral proceedings occurring in the court for which he is

appointed, including the testimony of witnesses, when he is

so requested by either party.

DEPOSITIONS

Civil Procedure 28-352 (c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 121-
CALIFORNIA

COURT CONDUCT

California Rules of Court

Title Three - Miscellaneous Rules

Division IV - General Rules Applicable to All Courts

Rule 980 - Photographing, recording and broadcasting in

courtroom

Photography, recording for broadcasting and broadcasting

shall not be permitted within the courtroom while court is

in session or during any recess, except for those proceedings which are designated as ceremonial and carried out as

such under the supervision of the court. The court may prescribe additional limitations for circumstances not prohibited by this rule.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

California Code of Civil Procedure

Title 4, Chapter 3 - Phonographic Reporters*

Section 269 - Superior Courts; duties

At the request of either party or the court, the official reporter of a superior court must "record in shorthand"

all testimony given at the proceeding for which he is present.

DEPOSITIONS

Title 3, Part 4, Section 2019

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

* (No explanation given with regard to the meaning of title. )

- 122 -
COLORADO

V

COURT CONDUCT

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 53 - Regulation of Conduct in the Courtroom

With respect to the "publication" of judicial proceedings , Canon 35 of the American Bar Association Canons of

Judicial Ethics, as adopted by the Supreme Court of Colorado,

shall apply.

Rules of Civil Procedure

Appendix C Canons of Judicial Ethics

Canon 35

The taking of photographs in the courtroom, or the broadcasting by radio or television of court proceedings is permitted if permission has been obtained from the trial judge. If

the trial judge believes that such photography or broadcasting

will detract from the dignity of courtroom procedures, or interfere with the achievement of a fair trial, it shall not be

permitted. Under no circumstances is any witness or juror to

be photographed, or have his testimony broadcast, over his expressed objection.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Colorado Revised Statutes

Chapter 37 Courts of Record

Article 4 District Courts

Section 37-12-32 Duties of reporter

The reporter, under the direction of the court, shall

"record in shorthand" all testimony, rulings of the court,

oral instructions given, and other proceedings held during

trial of any cause, and in such causes as the court may designate .

- 123 -
Rules of County Court Civil Procedure

Rule 380 Reporter; Stenographic Report or Transcript as

evidence

(b) Verbatim Record of Proceedings. A verbatim record

of the proceeding and evidence at trials in the county court

shall be maintained by either "electronic devices" or “stenographic means," if such a record is requested by any party or

the court.

Rules of Civil Procedure

Chapter 11 Court Administration

Rule 80 Reporter; Stenographic Report or Transcript as evidence

The court may direct that evidence be taken "stenographicaily" unless the parties stipulate otherwise.

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 15(e) Depositions

Depositions shall be "taken and transcribed" by the

court reporter or an appointed stenographer.

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 Depositions upon Oral Examination

Same as Rule 30, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 124 -
CONNECTICUT

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Connecticut General Statutes Annotated

Title 51 Court

Chapter 874 Court Reporters

Section 51-74 Use of shorthand writing machine or recording

device

The official court reporter or stenographer shall maintain a record of proceedings in any court where such a record

is required. The means of recording may be "by shorthand, by

shorthand writing machine , or by such mechanical or sound recording device" as deemed appropriate by the Chief Justice of

DEPOSITIONS

Connecticut General Statutes Annotated

Section 52-148 Depositions in Civil Actions

Testimony may be taken at a deposition (means not specified) .

Section 54-86 Depositions in Criminal Actions

A judge may order that the testimony of certain witnesses be taken at a deposition (means not specified)

- 125 -
DELAWARE

COURT CONDUCT

Common Pleas Rules

Criminal Rule 53

The court shall not permit the taking of photographs m

the courtroom or radio or television broadcasting from the

courtroom, during judicial proceedings.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Delaware Code Annotated

Title 10 Courts and Judicial Procedure

Chapter 5 Superior Court

Section 525 Court Reporters

The court reporter is to attend all sessions of the

Superior Court and to report all evidence, opinions and other

matters as deemed appropriate by the Superior Court. Court

reporters are to be skilled and competent stenographers.

DEPOSITIONS

Common Pleas Rules - Civil

Rule 30 Definitions upon oral examination

Same as Rule 30(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Common Pleas Rules - Criminal

Rule 15(d) Depositions - How taken

Depositions in criminal actions shall be taken in the

same manner as depositions in civil actions.

- 126-
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COURT CONDUCT

Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Criminal Rules

Rule 53 (b)

The taking of photographs, or radio or television broadcasting, or the use of any mechanical recording device without the approval of the court, shall be prohibited in any of

the courtrooms, outer rooms, cell blocks, corridors, or lobbies of the courthouse. The taking of photographs in any office or other room of the courthouse is permitted only with

the knowledge and consent of the person in charge of such

office and room and those persons being photographed.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

District of Columbia Code 1967 Supplement IV 1971

Title 11 Organization and Jurisdiction of the Courts

Section 11-1727 Court Reporters

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia may provide rules for the sound recording of proceedings in lieu of

"mechanical (audio or manual) transcription."

DEPOSITIONS

District of Columbia Code

Title 14

Section 14-104 Depositions

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 127-
FLORIDA

COURT CONDUCT

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 1.110

Photography or radio or television broadcasting shall

not be permitted in the courtroom during judicial proceedings .

Rule A Code of Ethics

Section 35

Same as Canon 35 of the American Bar Association Canons

of Judicial Ethics.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Florida Statutes Annotated

Title 5 Judicial Department

Chapter 43 Courts, Generally

Section 43.06 Report of testimony and proceedings

In criminal cases, the court reporter shall report the

testimony and proceedings at the discretion of the judge or

upon request of either attorney. In civil cases, the court

reporter shall report the testimony and proceedings upon

written demand filed by the attorney for either party. Such

reporter shall be an "expert stenographer and typist."

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 1.310 Depositions Upon Oral Examination

(c) Record of Examination

Testimony at a deposition shall be recorded "verbatim

stenographically or by mechanical means" and transcribed unless the parties agree otherwise.

- 128 -
GEORGIA

COURT CONDUCT

Georgia Code Annotated

Title 2N Courts

Chapter 24-6 Court of Appeals

Section 24-3640

Rule 40 Canons of Judicial Ethics

The American Bar Association Canons of Judicial Ethics

are adopted as the Canons of Judicial Ethics for the State

of Georgia.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Georgia Code Annotated

Section 24-3101

A reporter or stenographic reporter shall be appointed

by the judges of the Superior Courts to "exactly record or

take stenographic notes of testimony."

Section 24-3102

Same as above for judges of superior and city courts in

all circuits.

DEPOSITIONS

Section 38-2105 (c) , Evidence

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 129-
Section 81A-130 Depositions upon oral examination

(c) Record of Examination

Testimony shall be taken "stenographically or by recording machine" and transcribed.

- 130-
HAWAII

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Hawaii Revised Statutes

Title 32 Courts and Court Officers

Chapter 606 Clerks, Reporters, Interpreters, etc.

Section 609-9 Reporters and Interpreters, District Court

Clerks

The judges of the Circuit Court may appoint "competent

shorthand reporters .

Section 606-12 Duties of Reporters

Each reporter shall attend all sessions of the court

and record all the testimony of witnesses "in shorthand."

DEPOSITIONS

Title 33

Section 624-16

At a deposition, the testimony of a witness shall be

taken "in writing."
IDAHO

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Idaho Code

Title 31-2609 County Stenographers - Duties

"Mechanical recording devices" may be used for the recording of testimony at preliminary hearings if the committing magistrate so orders. If such a device is used, one

of the county stenographers will transcribe the testimony

upon completion of the hearing.

Title 1-1101

A stenographic

art of stenography"

oral proceedings in

pointed by district

reporter must be "highly skilled in the

and be capable of reporting verbatim all

court. Stenographic reporters are apcourt judges.

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30(c) Record of Examination - Oath - Objections

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 132-
ILLINOIS

COURT CONDUCT

Illinois Revised Statutes 1967

Chapter 51

Paragraph 57

A witness cannot be compelled to testify before any

tribunal, whether a court, commission, administrative agency,

or other tribunal, if any portion of his testimony is to be

broadcast or televised, or if motion pictures are to be

taken during his testimony.

Illinois Supreme Court Rules - General Rules

Rule 61 Standards of Judicial Conduct

Same as Canon 35 of the American Bar Association Canons

of Judicial Ethics.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Illinois Annotated Statutes

Chapter 37 - Courts

Section 655 Means of Reporting - Transcripts

The court reporter shall make a full report of the evidence and such other proceedings in judicial sessions to

which he is assigned by the chief judge. The court reporter

shall use "stenographic hand or machine notes," or some combination of the two in compiling his report. In addition,

the court reporter may use "an electronic instrument" as a

supplementary device.

- 133 -
DEPOSITIONS

Illinois Annotated Statutes - 110A, 206(e)

Method of Taking Depositions or Oral Examinations

The testimony at a desposition shall be taken "stenographically or by sound recording device/' unless the involved parties agree otherwise. Transcription shall be performed at the request of any party.

- 134 -
INDIANA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Indiana Statutes Annotated

Volume 2, Part 1

Rule I-4E Recording Machines - Transcripts

All courts in the state may use "mechanical devices"

for recording oral proceedings in judicial sessions. These

devices will be selected by the court, and operated by the

official court reporter. A transcript of testimony made

from such recordings is as acceptable as one done from short

hand. If a mechanical recording device is used, the court

has the option of eliminating the shorthand method of report

ing, if it so desires.

Indiana Rules of Court 1971

Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure

Trial Rule 74 Recording Machines; Court Reports; Stenographic Report or Transcript as Evidence

(A) - Recording Machines - Transcripts

The judge may provide for the recording of any and all

oral evidence and testimony by "mechanical devices."

DEPOSITIONS

Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure

Trial Rule 30 Depositions upon oral examination

(4) If either party desires to have the testimony recorded in a manner other than that specified in Rule 74, the

notice of examination shall specify the means of recording,

as well as the means of preserving and filing the deposition

-135-
IOWA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Iowa Code Annotated

Chapter 605 General Provisions Relating to Judges and Courts

Section 605.6 Shorthand Reporter

Each judge of the district court shall appoint a "shorthand reporter" who shall be responsible for reporting in full

the oral evidence and proceedings occurring in court, upon the

request of either party.

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 148 Conduct of Oral Examination

Testimony at a deposition must be “taken stenographically"

and transcribed.

- 136-
KANSAS

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Kansas Statutes Annotated

Article 9 Official Reporters for District Court

Section 20-901 Appointments

"Shorthand reporters" shall be appointed by district

court judges. Reporters must attend all sessions required

by the judge and take a record of all cases indicated by the

judge

DEPOSITIONS

Kansas Statutes Annotated

Section 60-230 Depositions Upon Oral Examination

Testimony shall be recorded "stenographicaily" and

transcribed upon request of any party.

- 137-
KENTUCKY

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Kentucky Revised Statutes

Section 28.430 Report of Proceedings; transcript

The court reporter shall take "full stenographic notes"

of all oral proceedings.

Section 28.435 Use of Recording Device for Recording Testimony - Purchase, Definition

(1) Any circuit court judge may require that a "device

for recording testimony" be used in any judicial proceeding. Such a device will supplement the services of

a stenographic reporter unless the court, with the approval of the parties, specifies that only a recording

device be used.

(3) Recording devices are defined to be any devices by

which the voices of speakers are recorded so that they

may be later reproduced in audible form.

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Section 5.16 Transcript of Testimony

Testimony may be taken from witnesses by stenographer

or by recording device, at the discretion of the attorney

for the Commonwealth.

- 138 -
DEPOSITIONS

Kentucky Revised Statutes

Section 28.500

Reporters may take depositions "in shorthand."

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30.03

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 139-
LOUISIANA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Louisiana Statutes Annotated

Rule 13-961

Court reporters are to report in " shorthand , stenotype,

or any other recognized manner,” any evidence in criminal

cases

Louisiana Statutes Annotated

Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 777 Recordation of Proceedings

Trial proceedings shall be recorded in accordance with

other provisions of law.

DEPOSITIONS

Louisiana Statutes Annotated

Code of Civil Procedure

Article 1453 Record of Examination

Same as Rhle 30 (c )

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

-140
MAINE

COURT CONDUCT

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 53

Regulation of Conduct in the Courtroom

The court shall not permit the taking of photographs in

the courtroom, or radio or television broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Maine Revised Statutes Annotated

Title 4 Judiciary

Chapter 15 Reporters of Decision and Testimony

Subchapter I Reporters in the Supreme and Superior Courts

SectrLon 651 Appointment and Duties

Court reporters shall take "full notes" of all oral

testimony

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 (c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 141-
MARYLAND

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

No manner specified.

DEPOSITIONS

Maryland Rules of Procedure

Rule 409

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 142-
MASSACHUSETTS

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Rules of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Rule 47A Recording Devices

No person shall use "any mechanical, electronic or other

device, equipment, appliance or apparatus for recording,

registering or otherwise reproducing sounds or voices," in

any courtroom, judicial chambers, or other place provided for

proceedings of any kind, unless prior authorization is granted by the justice having immediate supervision over such

courtroom or other place. In order for authorization to be

considered, a written motion must be filed describing the

device and the time, place, and purpose of its use. If such

authorization is granted, the user must agree that no such

recording may be used to discredit or otherwise affect the

authenticity or accuracy of the record of such case or proceeding.

Rules of the District Courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Rule 46 Sound Recording Devices

Essentially the same as Rule 47A (above)

Annotated Laws of Massachusetts

Chapter 221

Section 86 Stenographers for Grand Jury

Stenographers shall "take stenographic notes" of testimony given before a grand jury, as directed by the presiding

judge

- 143 -
Chapter 221

Section 82 Stenographers for Superior Courts

"Official stenographers" shall be appointed for superior

courts. (Manner of recording is not specified.)

DEPOSITIONS

Supreme Judicial Court Rules

Rule 3.15(c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Chapter 233

Section 32 Mode of Taking Deposition

"The deposition shall be written by the justice or notary or deponent or by a disinterested person."

- 144 -
MICHIGAN

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Michigan Statutes Annotated

Title 27A Judicial Systems and Procedure

Chapter 86

Section 27A-8611 Manner of Recording Proceedings

All proceedings, in the district court, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be recorded by the district court

recorder by the use of recording devices approved by the supreme court, or by the stenographers.

Chapter 11

Section 27A-1101 Circuit Court Stenographers? Number

The number of "stenographers" in each circuit court in

the state shall be equal to the number of judges in that

court.

Section 27A-1111 Circuit Court Stenographers; Duties

Stenographers' duties are defined by the rules of the

supreme court, and by the rules of the court to which he is

appointed. The stenographer is supervised by a judge of the

court to which he is appointed.

- 145 -
DEPOSITIONS

Michigan Court Rules Annotated

Rule 306.3 Record of Examination

(2) The deposition may be taken by "mechanical, photographic , or electronic means" if the parties stipulate or

the court permits. The court order or stipulation shall

provide details of the recording, preservation and use of

depositions taken in this manner.

- 146-
MINNESOTA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Minnesota Statutes Annotated

Section 486.02 Stenographic Record

The reporter is to make a "complete stenographic record"

of all proceedings, taking all questions in "exact language,"

all answers "precisely as given" and all objections "verbatim. "

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure - District Courts

Rule 30.03

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Chapter 597

Section 597.07

Depositions "shall be written" by the officer of the

court present, or by some disinterested person in his presence and under his direction.

- 147 -
MISSISSIPPI

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Mississippi Code Annotated

Rules 1642-1645

It is the reporter 1 s duty to take full and complete

stenographic notes of all oral proceedings each day of court,

and as the judge directs. The reporter may use "recording

machines" as an aid if he so desires.

DEPOSITIONS

Mississippi Code

Title 10 Chapter 8

Paragraph 1706 Depositions, How Taken

The officer shall be responsible for insuring that

testimony taken at a deposition is "fairly written down."

- 148 -
MISSOURI

COURT CONDUCT

Supreme Court Rules

Rule 1.35 Canons of Judicial Ethics

Same as Canon 35 of the American Bar Association Canons

of Judicial Ethics.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Annotated Missouri Statutes

Title 32

Chapter 485 Court Reporter, Stenographer

Section 485.050 Duties

The reporter shall attend sessions of court at the

judge's direction, and take "full stenographic notes" of all

oral proceedings in every case.

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 57.21 Witness to be Examined on Oath

The deposition is to be recorded by either a reporter

or a "recording device," and shall be transformed to writing

or typewriting.

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 25.11

Rule 57.21 above applies to criminal actions as well.

- 149-
MONTANA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Revised Codes of Montana

Rule 93-1902 Duties of Reporters

It is the reporter's duty to attend all sittings of the

court at the judge's direction and to take "full stenographic notes" of all proceedings unless the judge dispenses with

the recording.

DEPOSITIONS

Montana Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 (c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 150-
NEBRASKA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Revised Statutes of Nebraska

Section 24-340 Reporter; Duties

The reporter shall attend all terms of the court, and

make a "stenographic report" of all oral proceedings.

Courts, Municipal

Civil Procedure

Chapter 26-1, 106.01 Transcribed Testimony; Use, When

Tape recordings shall be used for the preservation of

testimony in all civil and criminal cases in a municipal

court of a "metropolitan, primary or first class city."

DEPOSITIONS

Courts, District; Civil Procedure

Chapter 25-1267.23

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 151-
NEVADA

COURT CONDUCT

Nevada Supreme Court Rule 240 - Improper Publicizing of

Court Proceedings

Broadcasting, televising, or taking of motion pictures

shall not be allowed in court during any and all court proceedings if requested by the court, or any involved party,

or the witness testifying.

Nevada Revised Statutes

Rule 178.604

The court shall not permit "the taking of photographs

in the courtroom during the progress of judicial proceedings

or radio or television broadcasting of judicial proceedings

from the courtroom.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Nevada Revised Statutes

Rule 3.320 Official Reporter

The judges of any district court may appoint one "phonographic" reporter to serve in that court. The reporter is

to record all proceedings "in shorthand" and furnish a transcript of his notes upon request.

Rule 3.380 Sound Recording Equipment

With approval of the board of county commissioners, the

judge may install "sound recording equipment" to replace the

reporter, and may appoint a special operator, or the reporter, to operate it. The operator is also responsible for

transcribing the output.

- 152-
DEPOSITIONS

Nevada Code of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 (c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 153 -
NEW HAMPSHIRE

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

New Hampshire Revised Statutes

Title 53, Chapter 519

Section 519.26 Stenographers

Official state court stenographers shall be appointed

by the Superior Court. The duties of such stenographers

shall be to take full notes of all proceedings and to furnish a transcript of any part of his notes requested by the

judge

DEPOSITIONS

Superior Court Rules

Title 51, Chapter 491

Rule 34 Depositions

Depositions shall be taken in "shorthand or other form

of verbatim reporting approved by the court" and transcribed

by a stenographer.

- 154 -
NEW JERSEY

COURT CONDUCT

Supreme Court Rule 1:25 Canons of Ethics

The conduct of the judges and the members of the bar

shall be governed by the Canons of Judicial Ethics of the

American Bar Association, as adopted and amended by this

court

Canon 35 Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings

Same as Canon 35 of the American Bar Association Canons

of Judicial Ethics with the additional provision that the

making of sketches of the courtroom or of any sessions in

the courtroom shall be prohibited.

Criminal Practice Rules in the Superior and County Courts

of New Jersey

Rule 3.11.6 Conduct of Trial

Photography, sketching, and radio and television broadcasting are prohibited during any criminal proceeding.

Rules Governing Practice in the Local Criminal Courts of

New Jersey

Rule 8.7.1 Conduct of Trial

Same as Rule 3.11.6 above.

- 155-
COURT PROCEEDINGS

New Jersey Statutes Annotated

Criminal Practice Rules in Superior and County Court

313-6 (b) Record; Transcript

All testimony taken before the grand jury shall be recorded stenographically or by sound recording. A transcript

shall be made only upon the request of the prosecutor or by

order of the Assignment Judge.

Rules of Practice - Local Criminal Courts

Section 8:7-5 Stenographers; Recording Devices; Transcripts

A sound recording device may be provided by the court

for the purpose of making an official record of the entire

proceedings. Also, any certified shorthand reporter shall

be permitted to make an official record of the proceedings.

The reporter must furnish transcripts on request, whether

the means of recording was shorthand or recording device.

DEPOSITIONS

Civil Practice Rules for Superior Court of New Jersey

Rule 4.20.3

Depositions are to be taken "stenographically" and

transcribed on a typewriter.

- 156-
NEW MEXICO

COURT CONDUCT

New Mexico Statutes

Section 21-1-1 (90) Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 90 Conduct of Court Proceedings

The taking of photographs during the progress of judicial proceedings, or broadcasting by radio or television

from the courtroom shall not be permitted. Ceremonial proceedings in court may be photographed or broadcast with the

permission of the court.

Section 21-2-1 (27) Procedural Rules of Supreme Court

Rule 27

Same as Rule 90 above.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

New Mexico Statutes

Chapter 16 Courts

Article 3 District Court

Section 16-3-7 Personnel - Official Court Reporter

A court reporter is selected by a district judge to

"record the proceedings" of the court as required.

DEPOSITIONS

New Mexico Statutes

Chapter 21

Section 21-1-1 (30)

Rule 30

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 157 -
NEW YORK

COURT CONDUCT

Rules of the Administrative Board of the Judicial Conference

of the State of New York

Section 20.5

The taking of photographs in a courtroom and radio or

television broadcasting from a courtroom are prohibited unless permission is first obtained from either the Chief

Judge of the Court of Appeals or the Presiding Justice of

the appellate division in which the courtroom is located.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York

Volume 29

Section 295 Complete Stenographic Notes to be Taken

Stenographers must take "full stenographic notes" of

the testimony and other proceedings in each judicial session

DEPOSITIONS

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules

R3113 (b) Oath of Witness; Transcription of Testimony, etc.

The officer administering the deposition shall personal

ly, or by someone acting under his authority, "record the

testimony .

158 -
NORTH CAROLINA

COURT CONDUCT

Superior and District Courts

Rule 15 Photographs and Reproductions of Court Proceedings

The "transmission or recording" of court proceedings

"for broadcast" by radio or television is prohibited.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

The General Statutes of North Carolina

Chapter 7A Judicial Department

Article 11 Special Regulations

Section 7A-95 Reporting of Trials

Certified court reporters shall be used, if available,

in the superior court. If court reporters are not available,

the Administrative Office of the Courts shall provide "electronic or other mechanical devices" upon the request of the

"senior regular resident superior court judge." The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible for periodic

checks to insure that the equipment in the courtrooms is the

"most efficient."

7A Reporting of Civil Trials

Same as 7A-95.

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Chapter 1A

Section 1A-1

Article 5 Depositions and Discovery

Rule 30 (c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 159 -
NORTH DAKOTA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

North Dakota Century Code Annotated

Title 27 Judicial Branch of Government

Chapter 27.06 District Court Reporters and Baliffs

Section 27.06.03

Court reporters shall take all oral testimony "in

shorthand .

DEPOSITIONS

North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 (c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Title 31 Judicial Report

Chapter 31-06 Deposition in Criminal Actions

Section 31-06-08 Depositions Taken in Writing or Shorthand,

By Whom.

The magistrate before whom the deposition is taken is

responsible for recording the testimony. He may personally

record the testimony "in writing," or appoint some person,

under his direction, to do it. Also, he may appoint a stenographer to record the testimony "in shorthand."

- 160-
OHIO

COURT CONDUCT

Supreme Court of Ohio

Rule XX Improper Publicizing of Court Proceedings

The taking of photographs during a court session

and the broadcasting or televising of a court session

are prohibited. Violations of this role will be considered a contempt of court and are punishable as such.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Ohio Revised Code Annotated

Title 23

Section 2301-18 to Section 2301-25

The court reporter shall take "accurate shorthand

notes" of all oral proceedings.

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 Depositions upon oral examination

Depositions shall be taken by stenographic means,

unless one of the parties requests otherwise. It is the

responsibility of the court to insure that recorded testimony will be "accurate and trustworthy."

- 161-
OKLAHOMA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Oklahoma Statutes Annotated

Title 20 - Courts

Chapter 4 - District Courts

Section 106.4 - Duties of reporter - Method - Transcripts

The recorder shall record all proceedings by means

of "stenographic hand, steno-mask or machine notes," or

some combination thereof.

DEPOSITIONS

Title 12 - Civil Procedure

Chapter 10 - Affidavits and Depositions

Section 441

Depositions may be written or taken in shorthand.

Title 22 - Criminal Procedure

Chapter 10

Section 769

Depositions shall be written in either longhand or

shorthand

- 162“
OREGON

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Oregon Revised Statutes

Chapter 8 Court Officers and District Attorneys

8.310 Circuit Court Reporter

The reporter shall attend court at the judge's

direction and make a record of all proceedings requested.

Notes are to be taken by shorthand or by means of a

"mechanical typing device using paper tape", and may

be supplemented by audio records taken on any "mechanical,

electrical or electronic device," by which the voices of

speakers are recorded so that they may be reproduced.

DEPOSITIONS

Chapter 45 Taking of testimony of witness

Section 45.171 Manner of taking deposition

A deposition shall be "written" by the officer

taking it.

- 163 -
PENNSYLVANIA

COURT CONDUCT

Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated

Title 12

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 223(b)

The court shall prohibit the taking of photographs

and motion pictures in the courtroom and the "transmission

of communications by telegraph, telephone, or radio" from

the courtroom.

Title 19

Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 328

Photography and radio or television broadcasting

from the courtroom or its environs during the progress of

any judicial proceedings are prohibited.. This rule does

not apply to ceremonial proceedings which may be conducted

by the court.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated

Title 17 Section 1801

The court reporter is to take "full stenographic notes

of all proceedings, as directed by the judge.

- 164 -
DEPOSITIONS

Title 12

Rules of Civil Procedure

Section 4017

The person administering the deposition shall "record

the testimony" of the witness. He may appoint someone

acting under his direction and in his presence to record

the testimony.

- 165 -
PUERTO RICO

COURT CONDUCT

Title 4

Appendix IV Canons of Judicial Ethics

Canon X

The taking of photographs, or radio or television

broadcasting from the courtroom shall not be permitted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

No rules applicable

to court reporting

DEPOSITIONS

Title 23

Appendix II

Rule 27.3

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 166 -
RHODE ISLAND

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

General Laws of Rhode Island

Title 8:5-5

The reporter shall "report stenographically " all

proceedings in court. Upon request, the reporter must

furnish a transcript of his notes.

DEPOSITIONS

Rhode Island Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30(c) Record of Examination

Same as Rule 30 ( c )

,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SOUTH CAROLINA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Code of Laws of South Carolina

Title 15 Courts

Chapter 29

Section 15-1902 Duties of Stenographer

Stenographers shall take "full stenographic notes"

of all proceedings.

Section 15-1952 Responsibility of Official reporter

The official court reporter has full responsibility

for "compiling, indexing, filing and safely keeping,"

the permanent records. The proceedings may be recorded

onto "discs or belts of a type which will preserve the

record permanently" or the proceedings may be recorded

by "direct electronic recordings supplemented by either

shorthand or stenotype."

DEPOSITIONS

Rules of Circuit Courts

Rules for Depositions Rule 87

(3) Record for examination

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

- 168-
Title 26 Evidence

Chapter 9 Examination of witnesses by deposition

Section 26-708 Testimony to be reduced to writing

The testimony of the witness is to be recorded by

the officer taking the deposition, or by the witness

himself, or by stenographer, provided that the testimony

is transformed to writing or typewriting.
SOUTH DAKOTA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

South Dakota Compiled Laws

Title 16 Court and Judiciary

Chapter 16-7 Circuit Court Bailiffs, Reporters and Interpreters

Section 16-7-3 Appointment of Shorthand Reporters

Each judge of the circuit court shall appoint one or

more "shorthand reporters who shall be well skilled in the

art of stenography".

Section 16-7-6 Duties of reporter

Official duties are assigned by the circuit court judges.

DEPOSITIONS

South Dakota Compiled Laws 1967

Title 15 Civil Procedure

Chapter 15-6 Rules of Procedure in Circuit Courts

Section 15-6-30 (c) Record of oral examination for deposition.

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 170-
TENNESSEE

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Tennessee Code Annotated

Title 40 Criminal Procedure

Section 40-2034 Approved reporting methods to be prescribed.

Verbatim records must be taken in order that an

accurate written transcript can be prepared. The means of

recording shall be prescribed or approved by the executive

secretary.

Section 40-2042 Recording equipment authorized

If a qualified court reporter is not available in any

court, the executive secretary is authorized to purchase

any recording equipment needed.

Section 40-2043 Contracts authorized providing verbatim

transcripts without utilizing court reporters.

The executive secretary has the authority to enter into

contracts to provide transcripts without utilizing court

reporters if "accurate verbatim transcripts could be more

economically, expeditiously and efficiently provided" by

the means agreed to in the contract.

- 171-
Tennessee Code Annotated

Title 20 Civil Procedure

Chapter 13 Trial

Section 20-1304 Appointment of stenographer

At a court proceeding, either party may request the

presence of a competent stenographer to record all oral

testimony as well as the rulings of the judge.

DEPOSITIONS

Title 24 Evidence and Witnesses

Section 24-1213

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

- 172 -
TEXAS

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Annotated Revised Statutes of the State of Texas

Title 42

Chapter 13

Article 2324 Duty of Reporter

The court reporter shall take "full shorthand notes"

of all oral proceedings, including final argument if so

requested. Upon request, the reporter shall furnish

a transcript of his notes.

DEPOSITIONS

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

Section 9 - Evidence and Depositions

Rule 206 Examination

The testimony of the witness shall be "reduced to

writing or typewriting".

- 173 -
UTAH

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Utah Code Annotated

Title 78 Judicial Code and Rules of Civil Procedure

Chapter 56 Court Reporters and Stenographers

Section 78-56-2 Duties

The reporter is to attend all court sessions and take

"full stenographic notes".

DEPOSITIONS

Utah Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30(c) Record of Examination

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 174 -
VERMONT

COURT CONDUCT

Vermont Statutes Annotated

Title 12

Appendix I

Part III

Rule 5

The "broadcasting, televising or photographing of

court proceedings" is prohibited. At other times such

activities may be carried out with the express permission

of the court.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Title 4 Judiciary

Chapter 17 Stenographic Reporters

Section 731 Appointment of reporters for county court

and court of chancery.

"Stenographic reporters" shall be appointed by county

court judges and chancellors of courts of chancery to "make

a verbatim report of the proceedings."

Section 743

"Electronic sound recording equipment for the recording of any civil or criminal proceedings" may be

ordered by superior judges, district judges, or probate

judges.

DEPOSITIONS

Title 12

Section 1245

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 175-
VIRGINIA

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Code of Virginia

Title 17 Courts of Record

Section 17-30.1 Recording evidence and incidents of trial

in certain cases and cost thereof; costs of transcripts

In all civil cases involving an amount greater than

$300, or in all felony cases, the presiding judge may

provide for verbatim recording of the proceedings by

a court reporter or by mechanical or electronic devices."

Section 17-30.1:1 Court Reporter

In all felony cases, the presiding judge may appoint

a court reporter to report proceedings or to "operate

mechanical or electronic devices for recording proceedings. "

DEPOSITIONS

Code of Virginia

Title 8 Civil Remedies and Procedure

Chapter 16 Evidence

Article 7 Deposition and Oral Evidence in Chancery Causes

Section 8-304 Deposition of Witness

In any pending case, the deposition of a witness

"may be taken"

- 176 -
Virginia Supreme Court Rules

Rule 4 . 5

(

c ) Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 177 -
VIRGIN ISLANDS

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Title 5

Appendix IV

Rule 6 Stenographic record of proceedings.

The reporter-secretary shall "record" the testimony.

DEPOSITIONS

Title 5

Appendix IV

Rule 40 Depositions

In accord with Rules 26-32, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

178 -
WASHINGTON

COURT CONDUCT

Washington Reports 2d.

Volume 34A Court Rules

Judicial Ethics Rule 35

The broadcasting of court proceedings should not be

permitted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Revised Code of Washington Annotated

Title 2 Courts of Record

Chapter 2.32 Court Clerks, Reporters and Bailiffs

Section 2.32.200 Duties of official reporter

Official reporters shall take "accurate shorthand notes"

of oral proceedings.

DEPOSITIONS

Washington Reports 2d.

Volume 34A Court Rules

Rules of Pleading, Practice, and Procedure

Rule 30(C)

Same as Rule 30 (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

POLICE PROCEDURE

Revised Code of Washington Annotated

Section 9.73.090

- 179 -
Police may make "video and/or sound recordings" of

arrested persons before their first appearance in court

provided that:

(a) The arrested person is informed that the

recording is being made and the statement so

informing him is included in the recording.

(b) The recording shall contain the times of

commencement and termination of the event being

recorded.

(c) The arrested person shall be informed of his

constitutional rights, and any statements so informing him shall be included at the beginning of

the recording

(d) The recordings shall be used only for valid police

and court activities.

Section 9.73.100 Recordings available to defense counsel

If a criminal charge has been filed against the subject,

any "video and/or sound recordings" of that subject shall

be made available to his defense attorney, upon his request.

- 180-
WEST VIRGINIA

COURT CONDUCT

Code of Judicial Ethics

35 Improper publicizing of court proceedings

Same as Canon 35 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics of

the American Bar Association

COURT PROCEEDINGS

West Virginia Code Annotated

Chapter 51

Article 7 Official Reporters

51-7-2 Duty to take shorthand notes.

Court reporters shall take "full shorthand notes"

of all oral proceedings.

51-7-4 Transcript of notes

Upon request, the reporter shall furnish a typewritten

copy of his shorthand notes.

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 80(A)

A certified transcript, derived from " stenographically

or mechanically reported" notes shall become part of the

record of the action to which it pertains.

- 181-
DEPOSITIONS

West Virginia Code Annotated

Section 57-4-1.

Depositions may be taken "in shorthand, or stenographic

characters or notes," and transcribed by the stenographer.

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30 (c)

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 182 -
WISCONSIN

COURT CONDUCT

No rules noted.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Wisconsin Statutes Annotated

Title 24 Chapter 252

Section 252.18

Every circuit court judge may appoint a "competent

phonographic reporter" whose duties are defined by the

appointing judge.

Section 252.20 Transcripts

Transcripts shall be made in "longhand or typewriting".

DEPOSITIONS

Wisconsin Statutes Annotated

Title 30

Section 887.10 Deposition; how taken and returned

Testimony shall be recorded "in writing, or in

shorthand .

- 183 -
WYOMING

COURT CONDUCT

Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 50

The court shall not permit photography during the progress of judicial proceedings, or radio or television broadcasting of judicial proceedings.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

Wyoming Statutes Annotated

Title 5 Courts

Chapter 3 District Courts

Article 4 Reporter

Section 5-79 Duties generally

The reporter shall take "full stenographic notes"

of all oral proceedings.

DEPOSITIONS

Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 30(c) Depositions upon Oral Examination

Same as Rule 30(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 184 -
Appendix B

Guidance Panel: Court-Centered Uses of Video Recording

Irving Andrews, Esq.

225 E. 16th Avenue

Capitol Life Center

Denver, Colorado 80203

Honorable Albert W. Barney, Jr.

Associate Justice, Supreme

Court of Vermont

505 Main Street

Bennington, Vermont 05201

Honorable George F. Boney

Chief, Justice, Supreme

Court

941 Fourth Avenue

Anchorage, Alaska 99501

Mr. Joseph Ebersole

Federal Judicial Center

1520 E. Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20005

Professor Leslie Foschio

Assistant Dean

Notre Dame Law School

Notre Dame University

Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

Mr. Richard Fox

Scientific Crime

Laboratories

1900 N. Noland Road

Independence, Missouri 64050

Honorable Murray Goodman

Judge, Criminal Court of

Record for Dade County

1351 Northwest 12th Street

Miami, Florida 33136

Marshall Hartman, Esq.

National Legal Aid and

Defender Association

1155 East 60th Street

Chicago, Illinois 60637

Patrick Healy, Esq.

National District Attorneys

Association

211 E. Chicago Avenue

Suite 1204

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Robert A. Jones, Esq.

Chief, Major Violators Bureau

Office of the U. S. Attorney

3rd and Constitution Avenue, N. W

Washington, D. C. 20001

Mr. Reis Kash

United States Marshal's Office

United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

3rd and Constitution Avenue, N. W

Washington, D. C. 20001

David T. Link, Esq.

Chairman of the Law and

Technology Committee

American Bar Association

1155 East 60th Street

Chicago, Illinois 60637

Mr. Paul Lucia

Laboratory of Criminalistics

Sheriff's Office

Hall of Justice

Redwood City, California 94063

William M. Madden, Jr., Esq.

Assistant Director

Administrative Office of the

Illinois Court

30 North Michigan Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Mr. Arnold Malech

Executive Officer of the

District of Columbia Courts

4th and F. Streets, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

- 185 -
Honorable Robert Murphey

Chief of Police

Police Headquarters

201 West Mission

San Jose, California 95110

Honorable Tim Murphey

Judge, Superior Court of the

District of Columbia

5th and E. Streets, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20001

Lt. Joseph O'Connell

Detroit Police Force

Television Training Division

729 Meldrum Street

Detroit, Michigan 48207

Mr. Lawrence Resnick

Editor, Criminal Justice

Newsletter

33 Washington Square West

New York, New York 10011

Honorable Joseph F. Weis, Jr.

Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District

Pennsylvania

7th Avenue and Grant Street

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219

Mrs. Jean White

Office of the Court

Administrator

368 City Hall

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Mr. Glen Winters

American Judicature Society

1155 East 60th Street

Chicago, Illinois 60637

Frederick Wiseman, Esq.

43 Martin Street

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dr. Michael Wong

111 Centre Street

Suite 922

New York, New York 10013

Professor Hans Ziesel

64 E. Lake

University of Chicago

Chicago, Illinois 60601

- 186-
Appendix C

SUMMARY REPORT ON COURT CENTERED VIDEO TAPE PANEL

A panel of experts comprising a cross-section of the

criminal justice community was convened on October 14, 1971.

The members included representatives from state appellate

courts, courts of general jurisdiction, the Federal bench,

law schools, police, and bar associations. State and

Federal prosecutors, public and private defenders, state

and local court administrators, criminologists, security

experts, court reporters, and publishers in the criminal

justice field were also represented.

The purpose of the meeting was twofold: To explore

in depth and from a variety of viewpoints the potential of

audio-video tape recordings (A/VTR) applied in a courtoriented environment, and to examine both the advantages

and the problems which might result from such applications.

This digest organizes and summarizes the conference

with a view to reporting the sense of the discussion, provides background information on the topics discussed, and

suggests possible directions for further efforts. Although

many topics were covered, the discussion tended to focus

on (a) the use of A/VTR to collect or present evidence;

(b) the use of A/VTR of trials for educational purposes,

and (c) the merits of A/VTR as a means of making a record

of trial. - 187 -
Collection and Presentation of Evidence

The use of A/VTR to collect expert testimony for

presentation during trial dominated the discussion of

the use of this technology for evidence purposes. Current

court procedures require the personal appearance of expert

witnesses during trial. These experts must frequently be

brought from great distances to testify and oftentimes

their testimony is lost because the expert cannot find the

time to appear. This risk of interference with the judicial

process due to the unavailability of expert witnesses at a

given time and place was offered to demonstrate the advantages of permitting the use of A/VTR to present evidence.

Time and money coulj be saved by reducing long distance

travel and avoiding unnecessary delay.

Other applications discussed included the recording

of police interviews with witnesses, public events such

as demonstrations, police interrogations of suspects

(including instructing suspects of. their "rights"), and

confessions. A/VTR offers the advantage of having a more

complete record of these events than is usually available

under present procedures. The video feature has the

advantage of providing a record of actions. An audio

recording would serve little purpose at a police lineup

or public demonstration; however, video provides a capability for full review should later charges of an unfair lineup or police brutality arise.

- 188 -
Constraints

The importance of guaranteeing the individual's

constitutionally protected rights was stressed. For

example, concern was expressed that a video record of

testimony taken at preliminary hearings or police interviews

with witnesses might, at subsequent points in the judicial

procedures, be given an unjustified degree of importance

which could diminish the right of confrontation.

The integrity or continuity of the reporting was

also emphasized. Any break in the continuity of recording

resulting from changing reels or turning, stopping or

"zooming" the camera might be considered a form of editing.

On replay, it would be difficult to know whether the omission

(or commission) was made purposely or inadvertantly. Such

discontinuous reporting could make the evidence inadmissible.

Care would have to be exercised by the camera operator to

insure that scenes recorded were not biased by camera angle or

field of view of the lens.

Education

A/VTR was considered of unquestionable value as an

educational tool. Members who had worked with this medium,

either in law school or in the continuing education of the

bench and bar, felt that its value in allowing for selfcritique could not be over-emphasized. There was a consensus

that A/VTR or motion picture films of actual trials are long

overdue for use in the nation's law schools. While attendance

-18 9-
at trial is valuable, the use of a recording would permit

legal educators to give a running critique without disturbing the court. A/VTR would have the further advantage of

pausing for discussion and replay for elucidation or emphasis

of important points. Acknowledging this, there was a general

agreement that the rules and attitudes against photography

in court must be changed before any progress can be made.

Record of Trial

The discussion regarding the use of A/VTR to make

records of trials was, perhaps, the most detailed and the

most controversial. The comments seemed favorable to

this application; however, it was agreed that there should

be study of the problems which A/VTR is intended to correct.

There was a recurring suggestion that it would be helpful

to compare available methods of court reporting.

Many of the comments concerned the limited availability

of court reporters, and some participants felt that there

would never be enough competent reporters to fulfill present or projected needs. Dramatic instances of extremely

long delays in production of transcripts were offered to

establish the inadequacies or the unavailability of court

reporters. It was also suggested that delays are caused

by a combination of many factors, not just the scarcity of

reporters

- 190-
Many apparent advantages were cited for both the

court reporter and A/VTR. The reporter can interrupt

3

proceedings if something is missed, seldom experience^; mechhJ-9 > 5

" anical failure# with stenotype machines, and a^e

considered to be less likely to misplace emphasis than might

oe-cur wi-foh video camera. These considerations were put forth

as advantages of using reporters. A/VTR, on the other hand,

records impartially what takes place before the camera, and

can show the spirit in which something was said in addition

to the substance. The facts that reporters get sick and

have labor disputes were cited as the problems analogous

to possible A/VTR mechanical failure.

The ability of the reporter to distinguish voices

from background noise and to ignore the latter is an

advantage over the machine. However, the availability of

such sophisticated equipment as multi-track recorders and

directional microphones should minimize interference from

background noise. The difference between the time necessary

to review an A/VTR on appeal and the time needed to review

a typewritten transcript was suggested as a plus for court

reporters. In return, it was stated that there is seldom

a need to review the entire proceedings on appeal, and that

review of an A/VTR might be limited to the relevant portions

of a trial.

- 191-
It was generally agreed that the presence of a court

reporter is not particularly disturbing to persons testifying

however, considerable discussion did concern the effect on

participants of the presence of cameras. Some panel members

thought that the participants in a trial might "act" before

a camera, whereas, others felt that it is difficult to

intentionally change one's behavior, especially for a nonactor concentrating on this testimony, for example. No

true consensus was reached on this point, and a study of

the effects of being pictorially recorded was recommended.

There was agreement that the effect of the camera would be

different if limited to court use for record-taking purposes,

rather than used for broadcasting.

Related Technologies

Closed circuit television (CCTV) and Picturephones

were also mentioned as potentially useful techniques for

court-related, purposes. It was suggested that, in the case

of testimonial evidence, closed circuit television might be

more practical than A/VTR. Rather than pre-recording

experts and other witnesses, thus running the risk of

wasted expenditure of time, money, and equipment if the

testimony is not used, the person testifying could be

called upon to appear before a local CCTV facility near

his home or business whenever his testimony is needed during

the trial. If closed circuit television equipment were made

available in local courthouses, the witness could be observed

- 192 -
while testifying and, unlike pre-recorded testimony, could

be questioned at any time.

The disruptive behavior of defendants in certain cases

has necessitated their removal from the courtroom during

trial or their being restrained in order to remain.

Closed circuit television might be used under special circumstances to keep the defendant and the trial "together,"

even if physically separated, thereby resolving the problem of maintaining order while preserving the defendant's

right to observe his trial (and be observed)

The use of Picturephones to argue pre-trial motions was

proposed as an alternative to court appearance or even

CCTV , since the prosecution and defense counsels could

remain in their offices and arrange for a "conference call"

with the judge in chambers. Closed circuit television

might not be practical since it would require more equipment.

A/VTR would have little value in this situation because of

the conference atmosphere required.

Legal Issues

The legal problems associated with the use of A/VTR

raised by the panel members included the possibility of

reassessment of credibility on appellate review, the

possibility of erroneous excision of material from A/VTR

of testimony, and the existence of state laws and court

rules prohibiting the use of electronic devices or cameras

in the courtroom. The problem of prohibiting the release

- 193 -
of A/VTR of actual trials to the news media, in the event

that those recordings replace the typewritten transcript

as the official record, was also discussed. It was suggested

that prohibition of A/VTR broadcast could be accomplished

by either court rule or legislation.

Operational Problems

The operational problems known to exist with the

application of A/VTR in the court context relate to monitoring, loss of record while changing reels, no recording

during play-back, editing, and the possibility of audio

loss from turning away from the microphone. Presently

available A/VTR monitoring equipment only permits in-court

monitors to hear and see what the microphones and cameras

pick up and not what actually has been recorded on the tape,

thus reducing the likelihood of discovery of a malfunction

either in the tape or the machine itself.

In order to provide a complete record, the operator

of the A/VTR equipment must interrupt proceedings to

change reels. (If court is not interrupted, something

important might be lost.) This could be avoided by using

either longer-playing tapes or a backup machine to allow

for staggered recording.

Should it be necessary for a portion of the A/VTR

to be replayed to review a piece of testimony, a second

machine is needed to record the proceedings during the

playback, for one machine cannot record and play back at the

- 194 -
same time. Editing, either by position or focus of the

camera or by the deletion of certain parts of the record,

was also discussed. No solutions were offered, but guidelines must be established. To preserve the integrity of

the record, it was suggested that at least one camera be

focused at all times on a clock with a sweep second hand.

Recording the clock on a split screen or insert (which is

possible with the use of a special effects generator)

would permit deletion of courtroom events when ordered by

the court, while allowing easy confirmation that no one

has otherwise tampered with the recording.

Loss of sound record from failure of fixed raicropnone

pickup can be minimized (as with audio recorders) by use

of omni-directional or lavaliere microphones.

Technical Problems

The technical problems discussed included the unavailability of precise tape measurement counters for indexing

purposes, lighting and acoustics in courtrooms, and mechanical failures. The need for accurate footage counters stems

from machine variations and, to a minor degree, the elasticity

of the tape itself. No solutions were offered for this

problem. In the experience of some, lighting presents a definite problem on the video protion of the recording. However, others suggested that there is equipment available

which will function well with only a minimum of light.

The acoustical problem, particularly with background noise,

- 195-
was considered a major drawback by some; again, others were

convinced that multi-track sound recordings and maintenance

of reasonable decorum in the courtroom would alleviate many

of the audio recording problems.

None of the equipment presently being used has been

specifically designed for application within the judicial

environment. The degree of reliability, durability, and

compatibility necessary for court-associated uses, were

considered achievable with greater cooperation between

manufacturers and cognizant personnel in the judicial

system.

Further Considerations

As previously noted, this digest is essentially a

summary of the deliberation of a panel, reorganized for

purposes of orderly presentation. The panel was convened

to share ideas and to provide guidance for ongoing efforts.

On the one hand, more study of the problem areas within the

judicial system might be needed before introducing new

technology. There was an equal belief that efforts should

be directed toward first-hand review of electronic recordings

now being applied in a court-oriented environment, followed

by suitable controlled experimentation in other locations.

There was general agreement that there is in sufficient

information for a technological assessment of court-related

uses of electronic methods at this time. However, each of

the proposals was deemed deserving of further study. With

- 196 -
this encouragement came the admonition that "the machine"

is not necessarily better than the man.

*

- 197 -
Appendix D

Electronic Industries

Standard specifications

Association of Japan

for one-half inch VTR's

Item Specification

Recorded signals The Japanese TV standard

system is applied

Video

Recording

system

i Audio

. i .. .. ... . „

Full field

2 head helical scanning

frequency modulation

Single track, fixed head

Tape width (mm)

12.7 mm (»5 inches)

190.5 mm (7.5 inches)

Tape running speed (mm/sec.)

60 or more

Maximum recording time (min.) (7" reel)

Video frequency band

(MHZ/-20 dB)

2.5

40 or more

Video S/N (dB)

115.82 mm (4.56 inches)

Cylinder diameter (mm)

173

Video pitch (ym)

3° 11'

Video track angle

(when tape is stopped) 0.8

Control track width (mm) 1.0

Audio track width (mm)

Source: Electronics Industries Association of Japan,

New York.

- 198 -
Appendix E

Selected Bibliography

Brennan, Thomas E. "Justice and Technology - 1997" Michigan

State Bar Journal , Vol. 50, No. 3, March 1971, pp. 14 9-

151.

Doubles, M. Ray. "A Camera in the Courtroom." Washington and

Lee Law Review , Vol. 22, No. 1, Spring 1965, pp. 1-16.

Gunther, Max. "Is Television the Answer for Our Crowded Courts?",

TV Guide , Vol. 20, No. 13, March 25, 1972, pp. 6-11.

Kingsbury, Nancy and Eldreth, Jenny. A Study of Court Reporting

Systems, Vol. II: Experimental Phase . Washington, D.C.:

National Bureau of Standards, NBS Report 10 642, March

1972.

Locke , John W. , et. al. Compilation and Use of Criminal Court

Data in Relation to Pre-Trial Release of Defendants:

Pilot Study . Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards,

Technical Note 535, August 1970.

Madden, William M. Experimental Video-Taping of Courtroom Proceedings , Chicago : Administrative Office of the Illinois

Courts, Interim Report to the Supreme Court of Illinois,

November 1968.

Madden, William M. "Illinois Pioneers Videotaping of Trials,"

American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 55, May 1969, pp.

457-460.

McCrystal, James L. Letter to Richard T. Penn, Jr., January

28, 1972.

McCrystal, James L. "Ohio's First Video Tape Trial - The Judge's

Critique," The Ohio Bar , Vol. 45, No. 1, January 3, 1972,

pp. 1-4.

McCrystal, James L. "Video Tape Trials," The Ohio Bar , Vol. 44,

No. 21, May 24, 1971, pp. 639-641.

McKeown , James F. The Use of Video Tape in Civil Trials,

Washington: Unpublished Report, n.d..

Morrill, AlanE. "Enter-The Video Tape Trial," The John

Marshall Journal of Practice and Procedure, Vol. 3, 1970,

pp. 237-259.

- 199 -
Morwitz, Albert. "Videotaped" Depositions , " The Outline

(Penna. Shorthand Reporters Association)^ VolT 29 , No . 4,

Autumn, 1971, p. 155-156.

Murray, Thomas, J. , Jr. "Comments on a Video Tape Trial from

Counsel for the Plaintiff," The Ohio Bar , Vol. 45, No. 2,

pp. 25-30, January 10, 1972.

Nilsson, Ernst, et. al. Studying Criminal Court Processes:

Some Tools and Techniques . Washington, D. C.: National

Bureau of Standards, NBS Report 10 258, Revised, April,

1972.

Nixon, Richard. Remarks of the President to the National Conference on the Judiciary, Williamsburg, Virginia, March

11, 1971.

Nordberg, John A. "First Evidence Deposition of Party Taken. .

Pursuant to Court Order," Chicago Bar Record , April 1969.

O'Connor, Rick. "Lights ... Camera ... and Trial," Jackson (Mich. ) Citizen Patriot , November 21, 1971, p. C-l.

Proceedings, Seventieth Annual Convention , National Shorthand

Reporters Assn., New York, August 4-7, 1971.

Rick, John and Halpin, Suellen. A Study of Court Reporting

Systems, Vol. Ill: Summary of State Laws . Washington,

D. C.: National Bureau of Standards, NBS Report 10 643,

1972.

Schiffman, D. L. "Videotape Turns Innocent Pleas to Guilty,"

American City , Vol. 84, November 1969, p. 30.

Short, Ernest H. and Ruthberg, Miles. A Study of Court Reporting Systems, Vol. I: Decision Factors . Washington , D . C .

National Bureau of Standards, NBS Report 10 641, December

1971.

Short, Ernest H. and Leight, Walter G. A Study of Court Reportin g

Systems: Executive Summary . Washington , D. C.: National

Bureau of Standards, NBS Report 10 656, 1972.

Simmons, Robert L. "An Answer to Trial Delay."

Sullivan, Harold W. "Court Record by Video-Tape Experiment--

A Success," Chicago Bar Record , April 1969, pp. 336-341.

- 200-
Sweet, Douglas L. "Videotaping of Trials," DRAFT, March 1972.

Watts, Raymond N. "Comments on a Video Tape Trial from Counsel

for the Defense," The Ohio Bar , Vol. 45, NO. 3, January

17, 1972, pp. 51-56.

Weis, Joseph F. , Jr. "Video Tape," Remarks to the Pennsylvania

Bar Association, June 26, 1971.

Ziemba, Stanley. "Plan Video Tape Court Testimony," Chicago

Tribune , August 1, 1971.

A Study of Court Reporting Systems, Vol. IV: Annotated List of

References . Washington, D. C . : National Bureau of Standards , NBS Report 10 644, 1971.

"Attorney Says Picturephone May Help Out Defendants," C & P

News, March 1970.

"Drunkometer Evidence Loses to Video Tape," Associated Press,

The Washington Star , n.d. (1972)

"Judges See Themselves in Video Taped Mock Trials," Judicature , Vol, 55, No. 8, April 1972, p. 347.

"TV Goes to Court," Time , December 27, 1971, p. 42.

- 201 -
'

I

I

\