NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

A STUDY OF COURT REPORTING SYSTEMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prepared for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration of the Department of Justice under

Nl 7 1—04 2 IA and for the Federal Judicial Center.

The fact that those agencies furnished financial

support of the activity described in this publication

does not necessarily indicate their concurrence in the statements or conclusions contained herein.

10 656

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

01

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. Today,

in addition to serving as the Nation’s central measurement laboratory, the Bureau is a principal

focal point in the Federal Government for assuring maximum application of the physical and

engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. To this end

the Bureau conducts research and provides central national services in four broad program

areas. These are: (1) basic measurements and standards, (2) materials measurements and

standards, (3) technological measurements and standards, and (4) transfer of technology.

The Bureau comprises the Institute for Basic Standards, the Institute for Materials Research, the

Institute for Applied Technology, the Center for Radiation Research, 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 an Office of Measurement Services and the following technical

divisions:Applied Mathematics—Electricity—Metrology—Mechanics—Heat—Atomic and Molecular Physics—Radio Physics -—Radio Engineering - —Time and Frequency -

Astrophysics -—Cryogenics.2 THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement standards, and data on the properties of well-characterized

materials needed by industry, commerce, educational institutions, and Government; develops,

produces, and distributes standard reference materials; relates the physical and chemical properties of materials to their behavior and their interaction with their environments; and provides

advisory and research services to other Government agencies. The Institute consists of an Office of Standard Reference Materials and the following divisions: Analytical Chemistry—Polymers—Metallurgy—Inorganic Materials—Physical Chemistry.

THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY provides technical services to promote

the use of available technology and to facilitate technological innovation in industry and Government; cooperates with public and private organizations in the development of technological

standards, and test methodologies; and provides advisory and research services for Federal, state, and local government agencies. The Institute consists of the following technical divisions and

offices: Engineering Standards—Weights and Measures — Invention and Innovation — Vehicle

Systems Research—Product Evaluation—Building Research—Instrument Shops—Measurement Engineering—Electronic Technology—Technical Analysis.

THE CENTER FOR RADIATION RESEARCH engages in research, measurement, and application of radiation to the solution of Bureau mission problems and the problems of other agencies and institutions. The Center consists of the following divisions: Reactor Radiation—Linac Radiation—Nuclear Radiation—Applied Radiation. THE CENTER FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts research and

provides technical services designed to aid Government agencies in the selection, acquisition,

and effective use of automatic data processing equipment; and serves as the principal focus

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 — Sys- tems 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 Measure- ment System, and provides appropriate services to ensure that the NBS staff has optimum accessibility to the scientific information of the world. The Office consists of the following

organizational units: Office of Standard Reference Data—Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical

Information 1 —Office of Technical Information and Publications—Library—Office of Public Information—Office of International Relations.

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

- Located at Boulder. Colorado 80302.

3 Located at 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfield, Virginia 22151.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

NBS PROJECT

4314115

NBS REPORT

10 656

A STUDY OF COURT REPORTING SYSTEMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ernest H. Short

Waiter G. Leight

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

ABSTRACT

The court reporting study was concerned with tests

of the feasibility of using an existing computerized

translation system for the production of transcript in

a courtroom environment; the development of suitable

statistics on time and cost of transcript preparation

with any of a number of alternative methods now in use

or available; and a survey of laws pertaining to the

recording of court proceedings. The Executive Summary

has been prepared as a digest of the study. In particular,

it distills the main features of Volume I, a compendium

of information on available systems , including descriptions and the necessary quantitative data to assist court

administrative personnel in modifying existing arrangements for their own jurisdictions. Details of the experimental program, survey of laws, and an annotated bibliography are contained in three additional volumes of the

full report.

The major recommendations are that further research

and development effort is necessary and is warranted, and

that consideration might be given to using the currently

available computerized system as an interim measure to

relieve excessive backlogs, but subject to some compromise

in existing practice.

11
PREFACE

The initial impetus for a court-reporting study was

provided by the proposed use of the computer to translate

stenotype notes to their English equivalent, offering a

potentially large reduction in the time necessary to trant scribe these notes manually. The use of this new technology

to produce court records was seen as offering possible

relief to that portion of congestion and delay in the criminal

courts system attributable to backlogs in transcript production.

In order to obtain an objective evaluation of the

feasibility of computer-aided transcription of stenotype

notes in the criminal courts system, the National Institute

of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration, Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Federal Judicial Center, sponsored this

study by the Department of Commerce’s National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) . In addition to evaluating the computeraided transcription process, the study afforded an opportunity to survey the state-of-the-art of legal reporting

in general. The study had two limited objectives: (1)

identification and analysis of representative examples of

criminal courtroom reporting techniques, and (2) design

and execution of an experiment through which the characteristics of each reporting system could be examined. With

such system attributes as time and cost documented, it

in
should then become possible to weigh the advantages and

disadvantages of each given system for use in a particular

courtroom environment.

The NBS study was conducted by the Technical Analysis

Division, Institute for Applied Technology, under the

general direction of Richard T. Penn, Jr. and Walter G.

Leight; the Project Leader was Ernest H. Short. The full

report consists of the following:

(a) Volume I - Decision Factors, by Ernest H. Short

and Miles Ruthberg, summarizes the project activity, presents system descriptions, and offers a decision technique

for selection of court reporting procedures. This volume

is intended for general distribution.

(b) Volume II - Experimental Phase, by Nancy Kingsbury

and Jenny Eldreth, describes the laboratory and courtroom

phases of the experiment. This volume is designed to provide

background detail for those readers particularly interested

in the data gathering and analyses performed in the course

of our work.

(c) Volume III - Summary of State Laws, by John Rick

and Suellen Halpin, provides background on the legal requirements and constraints for court reporting throughout the

United States.

(d) Volume IV - Annotated List of References.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

BACKGROUND 1

OVERVIEW OF COURT REPORTING METHODS 4

Currently Used Systems 4

Stenotype 5

Manual Shorthand 6

Closed Microphone Recording (Single track) . . 7

Audio Recording (Single track) 8

Audio Recording (Multi-track) 9

Systems Available, But Not in Use 9

Audio/Video Taping 10

Closed Microphone Recording (Multi-track) ... 10

Computer-Aided Transcription of Stenotvpe

Notes 11

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 12

Laboratory Phase 12

Courtroom Phase 13

SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF COMPUTER TRANSCRIPTION 14

First- Run Computer Transcript .14

Editing of First-Run Computer Copy 16

RESULTS 17

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20

FIGURE I-ls Sample Data for Production of Court

Transcript 19

v
BACKGROUND

All courts of record use some method of recording

testimony and producing the official record, but there

is a substantial interest in modifying or replacing

their current techniques. There has been increasing

difficulty in obtaining enough qualified reporters;

long delays have been experienced, due in part to

backlogs in transcript production; and the costs of

producing transcripts have risen considerably. As a

result, there have been intensive efforts to find ways

to produce the court record with savings of time or

money or, preferably, both.

Due to the complexities of the record production

process and various constraints which apply to court

reporting within each jurisdiction, the decision to

select and implement a new method of producing the court

record may be complicated and difficult, as well as

qualitative in many respects. Initial consideration must

be given to the laws and rules of the court governing

the production of the record, and also to any local factors which may bear on implementation of any decision.

Then, for each available system, the total time required

to produce a transcript and the attendant costs must

be examined.
It must be recoqnized at the outset that the makinq

of an official court record is but a sincrle factor contributing to court delays in some jurisdictions, and that

the problems attendant to court reportinq are complex

and highly variable from time to time and from one locale

to another. The sponsors of this study considered that

examination of this one facet of the overall problem of delays would be a worthwhile contribution while recognizing

that subsequent analysis of court-reportinq and other aspects of the administrative process of the courts will

undoubtedly be required. The National Bureau of Standards

(NBS) therefore conducted a study of court reportinq

systems? this Executive Summary is intended as a digest

of the Study. In particular, it distills the major

features of Volume I, which has been compiled to describe the several reporting systems currently used to

produce the official court record in one or more court

systems, as well as other techniques which are available.

All recording methods have been described in terms of

their operational characteristics, equipment and personnel

needs, other cost components, and their principal advantages and disadvantages. A systematic procedure for computing the total annual cost for each reporting method

has been developed as a means of quantitative measurement

and objective comparison to aid in the selection process.

- 2 -
Most current court reporting methods require a "man

in the loop." The court reporter is a highly trained

individual who records the proceedings and, in some cases,

participates somewhere in the transcription process , and

is a scarce resource in some jurisdictions. The most

efficient utilization of the court reporter's time, under

conditions of scarcity, is in the recording of courtroom

proceedings (i.e., using his special training), rather

than involvement in follow-up activity. A computeraided translation process, recently demonstrated under

such controlled environments as the recording of conference proceedings, has the potential of reducing

transcription time and freeing the reporter from most

of his translation/transcription duties. This prospect of reduction in reporter time out-of-court and

of time-saving for record production was, in fact, the

stimulus for the present study.

The main focus of the NBS study was to evaluate the

computer-aided transcription process in terms of its

operational feasibility, its cost, and the time required

for transcript production. The data necessary for this

evaluation were gathered by experimentation. The study

was also concerned with surveying the methods of court

reporting in current use; indicating examples of methods

which are available for use in some off-the-shelf form;

- 3 -
and identifying those constraints (both legal and traditional) which might affect attempts to alter or replace

current methods of producing the court record.

OVERVIEW OF COURT REPORTING METHODS

All current methods of producing the court record

consist of recording the proceedings by either shorthand

or audio recording; translating the notes back to English

if shorthand is used (this translation is usually dictated

for a typist if neither the reporter nor a note reader

types the transcript) ; and typing the transcript to

produce a "clean" official record. The process is generally carried out in segments, entailing the services of

one or more individuals, often highly skilled. These

component operations are usually time-consuming: if

conducted sequentially they contribute to long delays,

but, if overlapped to save time, result in the need for

more skilled participants.

Currently Used Systems

Four basic recording methods are in current usage

for producing the court record — machine shorthand

(i.e., stenotype) , manual shorthand, closed microphone

recording (single track) , and direct audio recording

(single track and multi track.) A printed record is

produced from the recordings in most jurisdictions; in

the State of Alaska, however, the audio recordina is

- 4 -
accepted as the official record. A more detailed

discussion of each system is presented in Section II

of this volume.

Stenotype

In the stenotype method the reporter reproduces

phonetic sounds hv striking a combination of keys

(letters) on a fixed keyboard. The reporter may

translate the notes and type the transcript himself,

translate the notes and dictate the translation for

a typist who prepares the transcript, or use the

services of a skilled note-reader-typist to translate

the notes and type the transcript.

The major advantages (exclusive of cost and preparation time) of the stenotype method of reporting

are

:

(1) The phonetic shorthand unit tends to be

standardized and can be translated by others trained

in stenotypy, although shortcuts and personal idiosyncrasies may often be employed.

(2) The reporter can, on request, read back

earlier testimony and can also readily record any

interjections during such read-back.

The major disadvantages are:

- 5 -
1) The recording (i.e., the notes) cannot be

used as the official record since they

are understandable only to those trained

in stenotype.

2) The accuracy of the record is reporter

dependent.

3) The capability of recording simultaneous

speech is limited.

4) A translation step is necessary, requiring time spent out of court by the

skilled reporter or a skilled note reader.

5) The presence of a qualified reporter is a

prerequisite to proceedings of record.

Manual Shorthand

In the manual shorthand method, phonetic sounds

are represented by a variety of graphic symbols. The

possible routes for transcript production are essentially

the same as those for stenotype, but it is not generally

possible to use a note-reader since shorthand symbols

vary considerably from one reporter to another.

The major advantage (exclusive of cost and preparation time) of this method is that the reporter

can read back earlier testimony and also record interjections during read-back.

-6
The principal disadvantages of the manual method

of shorthand are the same as those listed above for

stenotype, plus:

1) The reporter himself must transcribe his notes.

2) There is a tendency toward reporter fatigue.

3) The reporter must watch the shorthand pad

rather than the speaker..

Closed Microphone Recording (Single track)

In the closed microphone method of recording* , the

reporter repeats what is said into a microphone encased

in an insulated "mask" arrangement which prevents the reporter from being heard. A single track recording is made

and is later transcribed by either the reporter or a

typist. (This method of court reporting was one of those

omitted from the experimental program due to limitations

of funds and courtroom space. However, closed microphone

transcript preparation is analogous to the typing from

a stenotype reporter* s dictation from his notes.)

The major advantages (exclusive of cost and preparation time) of this recording method are:

1) The recording can be readily understood by

anyone and could be used as the court record.

2) A translation step is not required for the

production of the transcript.

The principal disadvantages of this method are:

•Sometimes called "voice writing."

- 7 -
1 ) The accuracy of the record is reporter

dependent.

2) The capability of recording simultaneous

speech is limited.

3) Interjections during "playbacks" cannot be

recorded unless extra equipment is available.

4) The presence of a qualified reporter is

prerequisite to proceedings.

Audio Recording (Single track)

The single track audio recording method produces

a one-track audio tape from microphones placed strategically around the courtroom. A typist then transcribes the material on the tapes.

The major advantages (exclusive of costs and

record preparation time) of the single track audio

recording are the same as those listed above for the

closed microphone recording? however, the single track

audio recording is limited by the following disadvantages :

1) Interjections made during "playbacks" cannot

be recorded unless extra equipment is available .

2) There is difficulty in separating simultaneous

speech.

3) A monitor is desirable; otherwise there is

a problem of speaker identification.

- 8 -
4) There is difficulty in obtaining an optimal microphone combination to insure clear recording.

Audio Recording (Multi-track)

The multi-track audio recording system records

on separate tracks the sounds picked up by microphones

placed strategically around the courtroom (i.e., a

separate track for each microphone). A typist then

transcribes the material on the tapes.

The major, advantages (exclusive of costs and record preparation time) of this method of producing

the record are 2

1) The recording can be used as the record.

2) There is no need for a translation step if

a transcript must be prepared.

3) Simultaneous speech is generally separable.

4) Speaker identification is aided.

The principal disadvantaae is that interjections

made during "playbacks" cannot be recorded unless extra

equipment is available.

Systems Availalbe, But Not in Use

Three of the systems available in some off-theshelf form for production of the court record are audio/

video taping, multi- track closed microphone recording,

and computer-aided translation of stenotype notes. A

more detailed discussion of each of these systems is

presented in Chapter II of Volume I.

- 9 -
Audio/Video Taping

Without considering cost or record production time,

an audio/video recording system offers more faithful

reproduction of courtroom events than is possible from

other recording methods. The recording captures not

only what was said but also the manner of expression,

including gestures. If a printed transcript must be

produced, the addition of the video to the recording

minimizes the speaker identification problems associated with the audio recording alone. However, utility

of this system appears to hinge on the acceptability

of the audio/video tape as the official record, and perhaps cost. Also, skilled operators would clearly be

required.

Closed Microphone Recording (Multi-track)

The multi-track closed microphone system records

the reporter's dictation onto one track of the tape

while the actual proceedings are recorded on the other

tracks. This method of recording court proceedings

eliminates all the disadvantages of both single track

closed microphone recording and audio recording listed

above, with the exception that interjections made during

"playbacks" still cannot be recorded unless extra equipment is available, and the presence of a skilled reporter is required.

- 10 -
Computer-Aided Transcription of Stenotype Notes

For the computer-aided transcription process,

the stenotype reporter records the proceedings in his

usual manner on a special stenotype machine which records the notes on paper and also on magnetic tape.

The computer program attempts to match stenoaraphic

notes with entries in a general purpose main dictionary , a specialized reporter subdictionary (tailored for

the stenotype notations used by each reporter) and a

special glossary (entries compiled by the reporter for

any unusual names or terminology which occurred during

the proceedings) . The resulting translation into English

is printed and "edited" for errors, then a second

printing produces the required "perfect" record.

This method of translating stenotype notes and

printing the transcript offers a great potential for

reducing transcript preparation time and the time spent

out of court by the stenotype reporter. Before this

potential can be fully realized, however, major difficulties must be overcome. Details of some of these

problems are presented below and in the section on

conclusions and recommendations. Fuller discussion

may also be found in Chapter III of Volume I.

- 11 -
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Data necessary for determining transcript production

times were gathered for representative systems for record production in a laboratory phase, followed by a

courtroom phase. The systems in the experiment were:

machine shorthand with two reporters typing their own

transcripts and two dictating the translation of their

notes for typists; the computer-aided transcription of

machine shorthand, for each of the four stenotype reporters; monitored, multi-track audio recording, using one

monitor/transcriber ? and, in the laboratory phase only,

manual shorthand, taken by a certified reporter/typist.

It should be noted that all participants in the experimental program are qualified court reporters, authorized

to certify transcripts in the jurisdictions in which

they function.

Laboratory Phase

The laboratory phase was designed to insure the

testing of the vocabulary range of the computer's main

dictionary and to provide a "shakedown" for the participants and the project staff before the courtroom

phase. For fifteen days the reporters recorded two

presentations each morning, lasting approximately twenty

to thirty minutes and consisting of both audio presentations and film presentations. (The presentation material

- 12 -
is listed in Appendix C of Volume II.) The reporters

then transcribed their records in the afternoon, and

the times required to produce these transcripts were

recorded.

Courtroom Phase

In the courtroom phase the reporting systems were

applied under actual operating conditions in a courtroom environment (namely, the Court of Common Pleas in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) . The first week was spent

in a waiver court (i.e., where the defendant has waived

his right to trial by jury) . The proceedings in this

courtroom were usually very short with extraneous action

between cases' which was not recorded. The second week

consisted of recordings in a jury trial courtroom.

The reporters recorded proceedinas in the mornings

until approximately thirty pages of transcript were obtained, then transcribed these proceedings by their

conventional methods in the afternoons. The times

required to produce transcripts were again recorded.

The magnetic tape notes were computer-processed to

produce transcripts, which were compared in pairs

to the conventional transcripts produced from the

same notes.

- 13 -
SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF COMPUTER TRANSCRIPTION

The computer-aided transcription system is a translator, hence its efficient operation depends critically

on the stenotype inputs. The translator works best

when the reporter uses the standardized stenotype forms

in the system's main dictionary and uses them consistently . It can also work well if any non-standard forms used

by a reporter appear in his subdictionary and he uses

those forms consistently. A careful screening process is therefore required to select reporters who are

compatible with the computer-aided process, and some

special training is required to develop the subdictionary,

standardize forms, and insure consistency. Based on

limited experience to date, it may be anticipated that

there will be considerable variability among reporters

in terms of initial compatibility and extent of training

required.

First-Run Computer Transcript

The computer program translates input stenotype

symbology and produces a "first run" copy, often including untranslatable material (flagged as such) and,

possibly, errors. As a means of assessing the quality

of the computer-produced transcript, first run copy

- 14 -
was compared word-for-word with the corresponding

transcript produced in conventional fashion from

the same stenotype notes. An "error" was counted

whenever material in the conventional transcript did

not appear in exactly the same form in the computer

transcript.

Four main types of error now occur: "no match,"

"fingering," "homographic ambiguity," and "word boundary."

The "no match" error refers to a valid stenotype notation for which there is no dictionary entry. (The computer in such cases prints a transliteration of the

notation between asterisks, calling attention to a

readily resolvable error.) The "fingering error" occurs

when the wrong keys are struck; this can result in no

match or, more seriously, a valid, incorrect match. The

"homographic ambiguity" stems from the basic nature of

the shorthand process, whereby the same set of symbols

is used to represent all words which have the same phonetic sound. The word boundary problem is the most

troublesome and potentially the most serious. It occurs

whenever the program logic fails to recognize the end

of a word. (The computer continues to combine shorthand

strokes as long as valid matches can be made. When the

addition of one more stroke results in a "no match".

- 15 -
the last longest match is printed. For example , some ”

red writinq" is translated as "summaried writina.")

Further discussion of errors, which necessitate

correction before the official record is produced,

is presented in Chapter III of Volume I and in Volume II.

Editing of First-Run Computer Copy

Due to the various possible sources of error,

the computer program is unlikely to produce a perfect

first run copy of the reporter's stenotypv. It is

therefore necessary to review the first run copy to detect and correct errors, whether or not flagged. This

"editing" process can be conducted with reference to

the basic stenotype notes, audio recordings (as were

available during the experimental program) , context

and recollections of the proceedings. Unfortunately,

the process used by the contractor did not take advantage of available aids. Furthermore, the manual editing techniques which were actually used are hiahly

inefficient in the light of state-of-the-art textediting systems. In any future operations, the reporter or note reader might participate in the review

process in lieu of conventional translation of notes,

with the likely results of improvina quality and reducing time.

- 16-
RESULTS

Study results have been based on the surveys conducted and on the experimental data collected during

the laboratory and courtroom phases. The times which

are cited here are representative of transcript production times under "daily copy" conditions, especially insofar as reporter participation is concerned. However,

data on typing times may be subject to some variability

since no special efforts were made to obtain a representative sample of typists for this program.

The results presented below highlight the observations which can be made; a more detailed presentation

and discussion of the data can be found in Volume II.

(1) It takes approximately twice as long to produce a transcript from direct audio recording as from

either of the machine shorthand methods. In computing

costs for production of transcripts in equal time,

two typists would be required for the direct audio

recording system.

(2) First run computer transcript can be produced

in approximately one-tenth the time required by the

conventional machine shorthand methods.

(3) The editing procedures used by the contractor

during the NBS tests were cumbersome, inefficient and

time-consuming. In consequence, the total transcript

- 17 -
production time for the computer-aided process was

two to four times that taken by conventional machine

shorthand methods.

(4) The time required to edit transcripts varied

considerably from one reporter's notes to another's.

This is relatable to the compatibility of the reporter's

style of writing to the computer-aided process and to

the amount of training or "tuning" received. Consistent

writing style, improved training and the use of more

advanced editing techniques should reduce the total

time for transcript production significantly.

(5) There have been few attempts to relate transcript needs to the type or rate of activity of a

court or the incidence of appeals.

(6) Reporting systems are not generally tailored

to fit the specific needs of a particular court.

(7) Many courts limit themselves to using a

single reporting method throughout the court system.

(8) Most courts are constrained by a requirement

for "clean" typed transcript.

(9) In general, advanced techniques of reproduction for additional copies are not utilized.

Figure 1-1 illustrates the type of data collected

during the experimental phases of the NBS study effort.

It shows the time required for each stage of transcript

- 18 -
Sample

Data

for

Production

of

Court

Transcript

(All

times

are

in

minutes) I w P 01 0 0 0 P O £ 3 o

•p a p p £ eu o HU'O

fo a) P P T3 O 0*P

Eh P < P0P TJ 3 G

Q, O 0 B o O 0 U W Eh

X!Oc3

04 0

>H £ 0 -H « Eh

Cn

rH C

fd *P 3 P G *H

fd 'O S WG p 3

CD « P3 P a 01 B P O -p U Cm

01 rp u fd 0 g 0

Td 0 a 0 -P >1 P P Eh a o

01 0 > 01 0 p cd P 0 0 fd ai us: p B p o

-P >i 01 •H

eh S Q P0 Td

01 P o

01 01 3

'd Td £ p o 3 O P Z £ 04 p

01 pp0

04

01

cx> P in

00 co CM 00 1 r—) p CO p + + + +

rp rp rp p

co CM VO p

co CM LO p* 1

l"* r—i CM p* O VO CO 1 rp P CM P

r- r" r* 00 1

Tt* o VO 00 in

VO r- c\

rH

VO r-

(N CM 1 1 i P o 00 o

LO p

in o CO o

rj* rr p p* LO

tnG

•P

Td

He H« O p < 03 U Q •p 0u 3 0 < OS 0 p

x! 0 P >

*P O

x! p CT\ p o

•p 0 0 £ a p

01 0

tr> 0 £ G P

•H . „ am 010 P T3 £ G •fH 0 fd P

x:p < 0a

tn P >i G 0 Eh •P Pa TJ

a. oi G

fd 0 0 p p p 3 0 0 c P

K* *P fd O B po

>i00 ••H XI r- a

01 H3 0

p> c x: a 0 p

•pP vo p O r- 0

01G P £

fd o 3 P 01 P 010 0 P £ xl •p -p P 0 P '—

X?p Td 01 0 0

Td oi £ 0 a•rH o fd P 3 p

Td 0 G 0 O p i—i

•P a fd P 3 O

PQ P 3 U tO G P

fd tn a G

*P tn id

01 P *rH • P 0 TS 01 0 P G 0 P >i O p P a. 3 O - 0 G a tr> 0 •P 0 G P £ m -p P

He P 0 vo

fd o <T\ pO Olt

*P XJ G

Ti Eh »d I w - 19 -

FIGURE
production for each of the participants and techniques

examined. This particular sample is based on approximately one hour of testimony selectively taken during

one morning of the jury trial.

Care should be exercised in interpreting the data

shown in Figure 1-1 in isolation and without more complete descriptions of the circumstances than are provided here. Thus, for example, primary comparisons

should be made along horizontal rows; differences within columns are, in many instances, due to artifacts of

the experiment. (The interested reader should consult

Volume II.

)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Since there are no absolute standards which can be

applied to the many facets of producing a court record,

only general guidance can be offered to assist those court

systems which recognize the need to modify or replace

their present methods of court reporting. The conclusions

cited below can be used in that process.

(1) The initial step is to assess transcript requirements by individual courts or types of court

within a system, including estimates of the number of

pages of transcript produced annually, appraisal of

the "appearance" requirements for the record, legal and

traditional constraints, etc.

- 20 -
(2) There is no single reporting method which

can be viewed as a universal solution.

# Each available alternative must be

examined in terms of time and cost factors to provide for satisfying court

needs in economical fashion.

• There are variations in needs from one

court to another and from time to time

in the same court, hence combinations

of reporting systems may prove to be

attractive.

(3) The feasibility of computer-aided transcript

preparation has been demonstrated.

(4) The* currently available computer transcript

system is subject to a number of deficiencies which must

be corrected before its potential can be realized. In

particular, computer program modifications are required

to improve resolution of ambiguities; the dictionary

must be expanded and reporter styles standardized in

order to increase the effectiveness of the man-machine

interface; and modernized, improved editing techniques

must be adopted.

(5) The present computer-transcript system can

be used operationally on an interim basis where transcript production backlogs are critical. Conditions

for use include availability of suitable computers,

- 21 -
reporter personnel compatible with the system, adequate

training and court willingness to compromise with the

appearance (but not the accuracy) of the record.

(6) Screening is now necessary to select reporters with style compatibility to use the computeraided system; subsequent training to use standard forms

and techniques consistently is now and will continue

to be required.

It is recommended that:

1) Each court system experiencing transcript

production problems should review its

transcript needs in detail. Since it is

unlikely that any single method will provide an economical solution to existing

problems, consideration should be given

at the outset to a multi-system approach.

2) Further research and development efforts

should be supported to remedy deficiencies

of current computer transcription techniques

and to enhance the capability for preparing

court transcripts.

3) Consideration may be given to using a computer system as an interim measure where there

are extreme transcript backlogs, subject to

availability of suitable computer hardware;

- 22 -
selection and training of reporters; adequate funding; improved editing techniques;

and judicial acceptance of certified, handcorrected transcript, perhaps characterized

by loss in neatness, but not in readability nor in accuracy.

- 23 -
- •