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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

    2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

    3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

    4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

    5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

    ADVERTISEMENT