ILNews

Pilot project will introduce video transcripts in 3 courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three Indiana courts are weeks away from beginning an unprecedented experiment: recording proceedings with digital video that will form the official trial court record.

“This is a deliberate and wise examination,” of how such a system would work, said Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, who is among those overseeing a pilot project at the direction of the Indiana Supreme Court. The project will install automated video systems in the courtrooms of Allen Superior Judge Nancy Boyer, Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner and Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush.

Cameras in those trial courts will roll on or before Aug. 1, according to Supreme Court administrative staff. The video will be the official transcript unless a judge orders a paper transcript in a particular case.
 

videomainsmall-15col.jpg Kurt Maddox displays a video camera like those that will be installed in select Indiana courtrooms by Aug. 1 for a pilot project that will create video transcripts of court proceedings. Maddox is chief evangelist with Jefferson Audio Video Systems in Louisville, Ky. The company has helped Kentucky document video court transcripts for almost 30 years. (Photo courtesy of JAVS)

Bradford said the video trial project will run for a year with the expectation that each of the courts will generate 15 diverse appeals: termination of parental rights cases from Rush’s court;

major felony convictions out of Stoner’s court; and civil decisions from Boyer’s court. Each of those appeals will be heard by a panel consisting of Bradford and appellate judges James Kirsch and Melissa May.

Bradford acknowledged video transcripts will take adjustment for attorneys and judges. But he expected efficiencies in preparing the video transcript to outweigh any additional time judges and lawyers will have to spend consulting video transcripts.


Cale Bradford Bradford

Indiana’s pilot is looking to Kentucky, where courts statewide have relied almost exclusively on video transcripts for nearly 30 years.

“On our end, the difficulty will be from going to reading and writing to viewing and writing,” May said in an email. “I can’t say there aren’t concerns with potential time issues, but when we try it, we will find out the upsides and downsides of the Kentucky system.” 

“My personal concern is that video transcripts may speed up transcript preparation, but will slow both the briefing and decisional parts of the appellate process so that we end up with no net gain in shortening the overall time for processing appeals,” Kirsch said in an email. 

Selling the system

“Indiana’s approach is the most deliberate and thoughtful of any court we’ve worked with,” said Kurt Maddox of Jefferson Audio Video Systems in Louisville, Ky., the company that will install multiple cameras in each of the three courts in the next several weeks.


kirsch-james-jusde-mug Kirsch

The question for courts, Maddox said, is “what really is the right way to do this in 2012?”

Maddox’s official title with JAVS is chief evangelist. He preaches the virtues of the video record, which JAVS has helped make the standard in Kentucky courts since 1983. Maddox said converting courts with deep traditions can be a mission compared with the relative ease with which some developing nations embrace video court records.

“In the U.S., it just takes a tremendous amount of effort,” he said, to overcome the institution of paper transcripts. “The Kentucky model sits out there challenging the traditional wisdom every day.”


Melissa May May

Maddox said video transcripts are more accurate and efficient than those prepared by even the fastest and most professional court reporters. Kentucky’s statewide court system estimates it has saved $24 million per year since it switched to a video court-reporting system.

“I have a strong belief, I think based on good evidence, that the taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of money simply because of the lack of interest” in moving toward video transcripts, he said.

JAVS uses a system in which multiple cameras are linked to microphones that are voice-activated and switch cameras to the speaker using an automated controller called a Centro.

“We create an automatic production without an operator,” Maddox said. Instead of the traditional period allowed for transcription – 90 days in Indiana – the transcript in video form is available as soon as the trial concludes, he explained.

The cost of installing and operating the leased systems for the Indiana pilot project has not been determined. Negotiations are continuing, officials said, and the state could retain an option to purchase the equipment.

Concerns for the record

Video transcripts raise a host of concerns for court reporters, from misplaced or overwritten (taped over) recordings to the inclusion in the official record of such distractions as ambient courtroom noise and how a defendant looks or sounds.

“While the Indiana Shorthand Reporters Association understands the motivation of the Indiana Supreme Court to engage a pilot project to explore other ways to make the court record, we still believe the best way to ensure the record is accurate and is efficiently produced is when it is captured and prepared by a certified shorthand reporter,” according to an ISRA statement from vice president Victoria Dudeck.

The association that represents certified court reporters said audio/video records are unreliable, and problems with the recordings sometimes aren’t discovered until transcripts are filed for review.

“There are numerous examples of hearings in which a microphone didn’t work or the entire system didn’t record properly. Sometimes, operator error as simple as the recording monitor forgetting to turn on the machine can render dozens of proceedings unrecorded,” according to ISRA.

The association said requiring court reporters be certified and participate in continuing education would present a better improvement for court records than video transcripts.

Adam Finkel, senior government relations specialist for the National Court Reporters Association, said courts are bearing the brunt of government cost-cutting nationwide, and video transcripts are presented as a long-term cost reduction that’s put a skilled, time-tested profession on the defensive.

Finkel said there’s good reason to resist automating court records, even if some savings are realized: “You’re putting a price on justice and the courts.”

Maddox said problems and human error arise with court reporters as well, but concerns about technical problems are overstated. He said video transcripts are the most complete and accurate available.

Moving forward

Stoner plans to visit Kentucky courts and confer with judges there to get some guidance on best practices and how the system has been used there. Plans are moving forward to have cameras installed as soon as possible in his Marion Superior courtroom.

“(JAVS’) IT folks are talking with my IT folks to make sure it all works together,” he said.

Stoner said judges will have some control over the system, such as overriding voice activation, but he doesn’t want to be “distracted by determining camera angles” when he’s advising someone of his rights when entering a plea, for instance.

Rush said the new system will require training, and not just for court personnel. “I’ve already started talking to the attorneys in my (Tippecanoe Superior) court, and really what we’re going to do is bring them along right from the beginning to get training on it,” Rush said. “How do you do a brief, how do you do an appellate summary from a video?”

“Those of us who’ve never seen anything other than a written transcript wonder how in the world this will ever work,” Boyer said. The Allen Superior judge has gotten some answers from JAVS and from practitioners in Kentucky. Typically, court events such as who’s testifying, direct, cross-examination, and exhibits in evidence are noted in a log that corresponds to time stamps on the video.

The video transcript will allow attorneys to have records of proceedings at the close of each trial day, Boyer said. The availability means, for instance, that an attorney could use video of witness testimony as part of a PowerPoint presentation during closing arguments.

“It could be very powerful,” she said.•
ADVERTISEMENT

  • COST FACTOR?
    The State of Florida has widened its use of digital recordings in its court system, also. First of all, as far as technologically advanced, CAT system steno reporters are FAR more technologically advanced than the archaic method of transcribing from audio or video recordings. Would you rather have simultaneous transcription or someone typing away and MAYBE getting out ten pages an hour? But to say recordings are cost-effective, the State of Indiana will soon find that the initial investment, usually running at least 10,000 dollars and up, per courtroom is only the tip of the iceberg. You then have the monitor's salary and benefits, the transcript costs, the yearly software maintenance agreement that can run 60,000 dollars a year, and, yes, the cost of complete system updates every five years or so. All of those costs are generally taken care of by stenographic reporters individually...now YOUR court system will have to pay those astronomical fees. And once the government makes that huge initial investment to convert, guess what? Then they get the problems with questions as to the integrity of their record and the judges having to deal with inaccurate transcription for appellate purposes. California just did a study on this same thing and realized they couldn't afford it. Florida was far more foolish and we live with it every day.
  • Relevant and Timely
    It is relevant and timely that the Indiana Supreme Court has launched a pilot project to record proceedings with digital video that will form the official trial court records in three Indiana counties. Since the 1950's in Cass County, Indiana, we have successfully used multichannel tape recorders and now digital recording systems to capture all testimony in our courtrooms and record all court proceedings. Audio recording of court proceedings in Cass County has proved reliable and accurate for decades. Thousands of pages of verbatim testimony have been accurately produced without glitches or failures. The audio record is verifiable and accessible to all. Kentucky has successfully used digital video recording of all court proceedings for some 30 years now. Digital audio and video recording establish the basis for further technological developments in the areas of speech-to-text, rapid word/phrase audio searches, transcripts linked to exhibits, and total case management in the courtroom. Fluctuation in the economy as well as the continuing advancement of technology mandate that Indiana give this project high priority.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

    2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

    3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

    4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

    5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

    ADVERTISEMENT