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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

    2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

    3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

    4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

    5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

    ADVERTISEMENT