There has been lots of opinions that the Judicial Council and the AOC are engaged in certain activities that they should not be engaged in. This post will be a build-a-list post of business the AOC is engaged in that they shouldn’t be engaged in.
.
- Educating teachers to educate our children. Every civics book in America outlines the roles and responsibilities of the three branches of government. Teachers educate our children utilizing these same books. While those in power might not be happy that the judiciary has an approval rating on par with the department of corrections, educating our children regarding the role and responsibilities of the judiciary has nothing to do with adjudicating cases and is not going to improve approval ratings. Serving the public with shorter lines and fair and equitable rulings will improve approval ratings. This activity amounts to a waste of resources.
- Court Construction & Management. Nowhere else in America will you find a judiciary owning, managing or building their own buildings. With light bulb changes floating somewhere between 300.00 and 2500.00 and courthouses priced as high as $1,900 per square foot, with some new courthouses priced as much as $130,000.00 per resident they serve courthouses have become partly based on need but mostly based on patronage for supporting centralization, the council and the AOC.
- Being involved in the workers comp system in any capacity. When you appeal an administrative decision of the workers comp system, that appeal lands on the bench of the same people that run the judicial system. The idea that the AOC manages the workers comp system for many courts is a conflict of interests with the AOC collecting clawbacks from the trial courts for a system that does anything they can to deny claims. Unfortunately all of this extra money clawed back from the trial courts is not returned to the trial courts while the concept of self-insurance is to save money. This continued scenario returns no money back to the trial courts so savings are questionable while the system is called horrid by those who are injured on the job, with the AOC routinely denying claims and claiming a loss of paperwork or “too late to file”. So you say you want to appeal? That goes to an appellate court, many of the same people that govern the AOC. Good luck there.
- Educating our judges. Some of the stories JCW has heard about what happens in the judges educational programs operated by the AOC seem to serve to compromise the overall independence of the judiciary if the allegations have any truth to them.
- Investigating and auditing themselves. The office of the ironically named fraud, waste and abuse coordinator reports to the director of finance. Therefore, no credible, independent audit or investigation is possible. Utilizing this same office to investigate and audit the trial courts operations is also a conflict of interests when opinions are formulated by the Office of General Counsel, those tasked to defend the trial courts, and are given to the office of the fraud, waste and abuse coordinator to present to and be accepted by the council.
- The creation of rules, policies and procedures that the Judicial Council and the AOC does not enforce due to a lack of any effective enforcement mechanisms.
- The AOC should not, in the name of the Chief Justice, re-appoint retired judges to the same courts in perpetuity. No assignment that is defined as temporary and supposed to last only 30-90 days should result in re-appointment of the same retired judge to the same court for over a calendar year. Re-appointing the same retired judge to the same court for 18 years is a violation of the public trust in the name of the chief justice.
- Reserved for your entry.
Ben S
September 21, 2011
Making Rules and Following Them
The AOC makes rules, even calling them mandatory rules, and continues to amend to them, making them more serious and detailed, but will completely fail to follow or enforce them. What is the point of having rules for the public and judiciary if you are not going to follow them?
anna
September 21, 2011
To give the public the impression, that they are above board. The public sees the rules and assumes they follow them, or assumes that they will be enforced. They have no idea that there is no one to enforce them or that they don’t have to be enforced at all.
MrsKramer
September 21, 2011
The AOC should not be engaged in telling judges what they must do or have access to the courts funds without their permission. AOC receives ample funding to provide support services to the courts as is their intended purpose. They were never intended to be the headquarters of the courts with supervisory authority over judges.
The Judicial Council needs to step out of la la land that their CCMS is a worthy expenditure while beating a dead horse with wasted tax dollars. THIS is what appears to be primarily fueling the AOC wrongfully taking over control of the trial courts in order to have use of their money in a dangerous threat to judicial autonomy and to the Constitution itself.
Its a classic Animal Farm situation.
antonatrail
September 21, 2011
In May of this year, CCRA was contacted by the AOC and made aware that they, the AOC, wanted to make a change to Penal Code 1203.1 through Senate Bill 428 (Strickland). The new language being sought would no longer require sentencing and plea transcripts unless it was an indeterminate sentence with or without parole. CCRA refused to agree with this since the language that they sought could only hurt the reporting profession and would not, as the AOC was describing, “balance the workload for different reporters.” The Strickland bill that the AOC was requesting to be allowed to add this language to was an omnibus bill, which is a cleanup bill that includes many different bills. An omnibus bill can only pass if there is no opposition. Since there was opposition from CCRA, the AOC had to remove the language from the bill.
At that time, the AOC indicated to us that they would pursue a different path to secure the language next year. During the week of July 17, CCRA was contacted and informed that in the middle of the evening after a new bill, AB110, had been voted on and passed, the AOC attached additional trailer language to the bill. The process that they used was very underhanded and did not allow for due process to take place since there was clearly opposition to the language.
CCRA went to Sacramento to seek support for a veto of the bill and wrote a letter in opposition which was sent to Governor Brown, but due in part to the fact that the meat of AB110 contained an increase in civil fees that are necessary for the budget and would have been lost if the bill had been vetoed, AB110 was signed into law in early September.
Though different from their original language sought, the new language states sentencing and plea transcripts are no longer to be sent automatically to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation unless it is an indeterminate sentence with or without parole. In all other cases, if the CDCR wants the transcript, they will make a direct request that it be prepared. There is also California Rule of Court 4.470 that requires sentencing transcripts be produced. The new language in AB110 does not address the continued production of plea and sentencing transcripts for use by the court or others. Therefore, pursuant to CRC 4.470, reporters must continue the production of plea and sentencing transcripts.
Commercial IT
September 21, 2011
In terms of cost, and in light of current technology, all of this is just plain silly. Plea and sentencing transcripts are required for the Court of Appeal, appellate counsel, and the Attorney General. Cost of preparation should be (but isn’t because the courts are 15-20 years behind on technology) a flat rate based on transcription of an electronic file from a digital multi-track recording. The cost to produce an extra copy for CDCR? Essentially zero. CCRA has (and I think unwisely for the long run) routinely opposed the use of electronic records in our courts. “Reporters” should be removed from the courtroom and replaced with multi-track recorders. Recordings should then be turned over to those who were formerly reporters who would now act as transcribers and produce electronic oral proceedings transcripts in Microsoft Word format. This would save a considerable amount of money.
antonatrail
September 21, 2011
Buzz off, commercial it. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Pick the proper forum for this argument and I’ll meet you there with facts that put your comments on your ears. Tiny minded idiot.
Commercial IT
September 21, 2011
Oh? And how much software have you written, Antonatrail? What is your background and experience? How much experience do you have with appellate records? Please wow us all with your extensive resume.
And please tell us which specific facts I mentioned that are incorrect. Oh, and do please give us the correct answers. I have absolutely no problem backing up what I’m saying.
antonatrail
September 21, 2011
It should be Penal Code 1203.01.
I wonder if the attorneys representing persons accused with crime with possible sanctions including a sentence to the department of corrections are aware of this. Is the department of corrections aware of this assault on their budget?
This was done in a sneaky, albeit crafty manner.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 21, 2011
The state of Washington is addressing this same issue as to how legislation is changed with a marked lack of transparency, hearings, etc.
Similar legislative rules are being supported by the press here in California.
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/sites/default/files/June%202010%20TransparencyPN.pdf
Is this a legislative maneuver that should be prohibited because I am having a hard time envisioning “Penal code 1203.01 should be something the JC/AOC should not be engaged in” Maybe different wording or a larger picture?
anna
September 21, 2011
what is ccra?
Judicial Council Watcher
September 21, 2011
California Court Reporters Association?
Wendy Darling
September 21, 2011
Published today, Wednesday, September 21, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:
Court Bureaucracy Coughs Up Numbers on Workers and Pay
By MARIA DINZEO
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/21/39970.htm
Long live the ACJ.
antonatrail
September 21, 2011
I want a tee shirt! Money is no object!
Michael Paul
September 21, 2011
From the time I left the AOC I would call this list of contractors a net add of employees. Some of them I know personally and have worked at the AOC for several years but there is lots of new names on that list since I left.
I want a t-shirt too!
This list excludes consultants that are direct with the AOC and not through apple one. In other words, this list is not complete.
MrsKramer
September 21, 2011
Maybe they could autograph ’em and sell ’em at the next Judicial Council meeting. I’d buy one.
courtflea
September 21, 2011
Sorry I agree with Commercial IT on the court reporter issue. I know that is an explosive issue. While I have known many CSRs and been friends with a few in my career, but you simply can’t avoid/ignore the marching on of progress.
I also disagree with spending for teaching kids about the branch being a waste. If you are ever going to get folks to understand and care what goes on in the judicial branch, people have to be educated. Civics education has been sadly neglected in our schools. I’m not saying that the branch’s attempt is a cure all and the branch should take over this type of education over the schools, but it is a start. This expenditure is an investment in the future.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
Courtflea, I’m sorry too. I don’t know what courtroom you may have spent decades in to come to that decision. Court reporters work with electronics now and can produce transcripts at the end of the day’s session. They buy their own software and laptops, cables, machine writers. They have vendors that are constantly updating and improving the court reporter software and technology. Most have continuing education that is required. Tape recorders are not progress.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Thank you, courtflea. I notice there is no list from antonatrail of incorrect statements by me. I am also well aware of the explosiveness of the court reporter issue and wonder if perhaps antonatrail is a CSR. There is legislation in effect now that bars the creation of certain electronic records in California courtrooms, thus running up costs. It was snuck in on the 99th page of an appropriations bill a few years ago by the NCCRA’s lobbyist. Current technology would permit a rearranged situation under which CSR’s would make about the same as before but work differently and have higher productivity. The enabling software exists as do the procedures.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
Just because a jackass brays doesn’t mean one should answer it. Nevertheless, I will provide the correct info since you keep braying from your barn. There’s no list for your errors; it’s your whole mind-set.
Think on this meanwhile. If the AOC took over transcripts, would the budget thereof be handled wisely? Would they purchase the correct technology? They would go down a similar road that they’ve traveled on the road to CCMS. You can bet they would then charge the beleaguered public three times what court reporters charge. Or more, say, what the market will bear.
Aren’t you just cryin’ and whinin’ because YOU want to write your pathetic software for CCMS? And you SUSPECT I may be a CSR. How vile, of course, I may be a court reporter.
Yeah, I’m a retired court reporter. I’ve listened to cuh-rap from small-minded people like you for four decades, who want to slap a tape recorder down on a desk in a courtroom to take the place of a court reporter. I’m just weary and sick of hearing it.
I’ll be back with back-up info that proves court reporters are the best. I doubt a tiny mind like you will check it out.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Whoa! Slow down there before you have a stroke. I’m just addressing the technology that could be used, not who would administer it. I think local courts should be put in charge of handling actual electronic transcripts although uniformity in their preparation would be wise. And on what do you base remarks about “pathetic”? Are you familiar with the technology involved in CCMS? Current data management technology? Do you write software? I do.
There is nothing vile about being a court reporter. And I never said there was. But technology has advanced and changes in how things are done in courtrooms should accordingly be made in the name of both efficiency and accuracy. I am well aware of the history of recordings in courtrooms. There have been tremendous advancements in recent years. The most efficient and most accurate way to do it now is to use multi-track recorders that can separate voices. Transcribers then prepare an electronic oral proceedings transcript from the recording. Some courts are using video instead of just audio, for additional corroboration of speaker identification. Of course, those who only see the past and view the advances in technology as a threat, have opposed these advances, going so far as to get lobbyists to hide anti-technology provisions in things like appropriations bills. In this day of scarce public funding, this desperate fighting against progress is going to have to give way eventually.
Antonatrail, I never accused you of having a tiny mind. Why don’t you do me the courtesy of according me the same respect? Have you ever looked at what is possible today with respect to creating case management systems? Are you familiar at all with the technology? I am, and have extensive experience writing data management software so you might want to slow down on that anger and just take a look at what is possible.
And finally, unlike other proposals that I heard several years back, what I would propose would simply change the job actions of those who are now court reporters, and would require fewer such personnel at each superior court, but would not substantially change the net pay of such personnel. The overall cost would fall, but that would be due to efficiency increases. Before you strike out in such anger, calm down a minute and apprise yourself of the facts.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
Please apprise yourself of the facts, Richard. Court reporters have been under attack from small, jealous minds since women started dominating the field. Originally when males did this very skillful and hard, stressful work, you wouldn’t hear this kind of rhetoric from you or Courtflea. Here’s just a few url’s with info from CCRA. Take the time to read ’em before you talk about progress.
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CACourtsRecordingEquipment6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/DigitalRecordingSummaryReport.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CourtsbringbackCourtReporters6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/TranscriptionCosts6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CACourtsRecordingEquipment6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/UseofRecordinginCACourts6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/Court_Reporting-TeEA6FE.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/Court_Reporting-CoEA701.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/ReporterTranscriptCosts.pdf
I suggested this was neither the time nor place to argue this. I respect this board and the other posters on it. Apparently you don’t. You just have to go on and on and on …
I am now
Citizen Ant
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Just wondering. I looked at the lists referenced by Maria Dinzeo. I note the large number of temps assigned to CCMS on the Apple One list. What exactly would be their qualifications? Their value? What exactly do they do? I know from extensive experience that the best testers, both at alpha and beta stages of software writing, are usually people who are prospective end-users of the software. I.e., they should be court clerks, judges, lawyers, etc. They should be testing functionality. So what is the story here? Anyone know?
007
September 22, 2011
Testers for the most part.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Okay, but testing what? What exactly are they doing? I have been involved extensively in software development so “testing” isn’t an adequate description to figure out what these people are doing. Are they testing functionality? Are they reviewing source code directly? Something else? What are their qualifications?
JusticeCalifornia
September 22, 2011
The cj and aoc should not be appointing retired judges to serve as bench officers on a long term basis via the assigned judges program, nor should they be given the sole power to investigate and act upon complaints about temporarily assigned retired judges. Under the CA Constitution, judges are supposed to be a) appointed by the Governor or elected by the people; b) subject to retention elections, and c) subject to oversight by the Commission on Judicial Performance. All three of these objectives are currently thwarted by the cj/aoc’s deliberate and ongoing abuse of the assigned judge’s program. Exhibit “A”:
Jack Halpin retired 18 years ago from his position as a Shasta County Superior Court judge and, so the story goes, returned the following week as a “retired temporarily assigned judge” collecting double compensation (his retirement benefits and his “assigned” judge’s compensation) for performing the same duties. The cj has been “temporarily” reassigning him every 30 or so days for the last 18 years, reportedly notwithstanding many, many internal and external complaints about him.
In this manner, for 18 long years the Shasta County community has been deprived of its right to remove this double dipping problematic judge via the elective process, or complaints to the CJP. At this point Molly Bigelow and Sakauye are knowingly and intentionally rubbing salt in an open festering family court wound (and undermining the public’s trust and confidence in the branch) by perpetuating this travesty every 30 days over the complaints and protests of the Shasta community. (One has to wonder why.)
And as long as we are talking overhaul of the system, perhaps, as someone already suggested on JCW, there should be a review and reallocation of judicial resources, such that surplus judicial positions in “judge rich” counties are phased out, and allocated to counties with a shortage of judges.
IMHO
September 22, 2011
The assigned judge program is actually quite valuable, and if properly run, it is a cost saver, as there are no pension contributions, etc. However, the program was clearly not designed to provide a retired judge with full time work year after year, and certainly not in one court. You are right–18 years is far too long to have a retired judge sit in one spot.
One way to handle the matter would be by a simple rule of court to the effect that absent a truly extraordinary circumstance or state of emergency, an assigned judge may sit no more than X days per year. If the judge serves beyond that, he/she loses pension benefits for the additional time. The “X” might be 90 days, 120 days, or some other reasonable number. There are analogous provisions dealing with retirees coming back to work in other occupations. The vast majority of judges in the program have no desire to sit endlessly–that’s why they retired in the first place.
It is a good program, but abuses will kill it unless they are corrected.
Anon
September 22, 2011
Court reporters are among the highest paid employees in the court making >$85k a year (see mercurynews.com/salaries/courts/2009 )…and that’s before any money made on transcriptions. And they typically require the court to give them time to prepare the transcripts. Even the LAO has stated the courts should move to electronic recording as a major cost savings.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
If electronic recordings are used, be prepared to triple the time to transcribe that crap! Gee, 85K. Wow. Really socking it away in today’s climate.
Court reporters have the ability to real-time trials now, especially death penalty cases or high profile civil cases. An instant transcript at the end of the day. Do that with your wonderful tape recordings.
No sane person wants to transcribe the garbage from a tape recorder of a busy courtroom, doors slamming, coughing, people talking over each other, other attorneys talking about their cases coming up, just the human drama.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Actually, it has been done. The results were so shocking that they triggered lawsuits in Florida by court reporters about two or three years ago trying to stop the use of the technology. Just to make the point, the people involved transmitted the compressed files to transcribers in Canada overnight and the next morning they had what were described as flawless transcripts in electronic form. There was also a demonstration project in California, in Orange County, that triggered similar opposition. Pennsylvania has been using video recording technology in a number of courts, with a control room that monitors up to 14 courtrooms at a time. Court reporters were dropped in Oregon a while back.
Battling against this technology head-on is not the way to go, Antonatrail. Adapt. Go with the flow.
In a modern system, the recording technology would be just one component in an overall justice data management system that would include everything from electronic jury instructions, to bilateral data transfers between associated agencies, to searchable pooled arrays of data, totally electronic searchable trial records, all-electronic pleadings, electronic forms with automatic calculations, easily searchable databases of general identifications of case files, pooled arrays of non-confidential case documents, etc., etc. None of this has been put into effect while people battle over CCMS which is based on ancient technology.
It is time to stop the territorial battles and remember what the courts are supposed to be there for – the citizens.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
Here are just a few items from CCRA. Read ’em and weep, anvil.
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CACourtsRecordingEquipment6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/DigitalRecordingSummaryReport.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CourtsbringbackCourtReporters6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/TranscriptionCosts6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CACourtsRecordingEquipment6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/UseofRecordinginCACourts6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/Court_Reporting-TeEA6FE.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/Court_Reporting-CoEA701.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/ReporterTranscriptCosts.pdf
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
JCW, I have been unable to post a reply to this old anvil. What’s up?
Judicial Council Watcher
September 22, 2011
More than five links is automatically marked as spam, so they need to be fished out of the spam bucket and approved. Done.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CACourtsRecordingEquipment6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/DigitalRecordingSummaryReport.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CourtsbringbackCourtReporters6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/TranscriptionCosts6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/CACourtsRecordingEquipment6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/UseofRecordinginCACourts6-09.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/Court_Reporting-TeEA6FE.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/Court_Reporting-CoEA701.pdf
http://data.memberclicks.com/site/ccra/ReporterTranscriptCosts.pdf
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
Here is just SOME info on court reporting. It includes Florida issues.
Stop attacking hard-working people.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Wow! Antonatrail, have you ever heard the term “strawman” or the expression setting up and knocking down a strawman? I looked at several of your documents produced obviously by lobbyists and/or general advocates on behalf of court reporters. Your sources are fighting back against proposals that I don’t agree with and have not suggested. Slow down a moment and more calmly reflect on what I said. I could provide a lot more detail but currently you see me in your anger as some sort of “enemy” so I’m guessing you would need to calm down first, then look at what is possible. Court reporters might want to avoid the bludgeon approach which has taken place I believe in Oregon and instead adapt. Court reporters have vast and valuable experience which should be leveraged and used in a modern system. I have never advocated outright firing of court reporters so don’t spend too much of your time punching that strawman. There is currently a shortage of court reporters. Attrition + migration is the solution.
And several of the processes mentioned, and that you and the cited materials oppose, are, in my opinion, ill-advised such as having a new type of person monitoring digital recordings in each courtroom. That expense is not required. I spoke with people in Pennsylvania about that.
I realize that new technology can be unnerving to some people. Willie Loman in Death of a Salesman is the classic example. But adaptation to new technology can bring huge rewards. And people can adapt, if they are willing. And, in our present situation, it could bring about huge savings of judicial branch funds which could then be diverted to keeping our courts open.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
I am NOT battling against technology! Court reporters work alongside technology. When I was working, I upgraded my equipment more than once, and it was easily 10 grand here and three grand there for hardware and software. These costs are borne by the court reporter. Much better than entrusting these decisions on technology to the end user than some bureaucrat who never steps into a courtroom. How much time have you spent in a courtroom, sir? More than my 27 years? Day in, day out, taking down every word. Most reporters work hard and spend a lot to stay current. It’s so frustrating to go up against someone like you. Yes, it IS all about the citizens. So you would be happy with less than the most efficient way to serve the public. AND the AOC administering the transcripts? What a eff-ing NIGHTMARE it would be.
No, I don’t write software. So I am a “less than”?
I suggested this was not the time or place to argue this. I respect this board and other posters and most readers here and they don’t need this argument. But I can’t leave your erroneous comments unanswered. Take the time and check out the url’s.
We are NEVER going to agree on this issue.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Well, to answer one of your questions, I have spent a lot of time in courtrooms. And I have seen the evolution in technology employed by courtroom reporters.
For all those not sure about the relevancy of the materials cited by Antonatrail, carefully go back over some of them, I believe the third one down is a good example if my memory serves me correctly. Jot down in a list all of the years mentioned. Then ponder that list for a moment.
Back around 1980, an upstart named Bill Gates and his friend, Paul Allen, started Microsoft. We were still in the DOS era until the mid to late 1980’s. The current generally recognized time period for computer technology to go from new to obsolescent (at least in the economically useful sense) is about 3 to 4 years. Note that the years you jotted down are many, many cycles back. Things that happened in the 1980’s have little or no bearing on what is currently possible or economically useful. Any technology that emanates directly from or is based on tools or products prior to 2007 is of doubtful value. Discussing what happened in 1986 is simply of historical interest, possibly to those who might be preparing an essay on the history of computing technology.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
Oh, tell me about the wonderful Bill Gates and DOS. That’s about when computer-aided transcript software was written with the mickey-soft platform. Tell me about it! I suffered that crap from Gates for years! All the way through XP. I tried Novell DOS, then linux to try and get away from his market-grabbing crap software. All through those years I was sitting in a courtroom taking it all down. You’re preaching to the choir. Court reporters have adapted to the change and so-called progress. Do you know what a captioner is? Have you seen a transcript handed over to the attorneys at the end of the day?
Those were just some of the url’s. There are many more. Please take your braying elsewhere about progress, sir — spelled c-u-r — and drop this matter.
The whole point of my initial post was that the AOC is pushing through legislature in the dark of the evening. We’re WAY off-topic! [shaddup]
Oh, whoops, did I say that out loud?
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
I apologize for the multiple postings. It is a passionate issue for me, as you can see.
anna
September 22, 2011
the fact that the AOC or the JC want to control Court reporters is disturbing. The JC put their noses in jury instructions [for the purpose of generating income] BAJI was already in existence [ so it’s redundant ] and then started mucking around with actual language to change statutory intent. [intentionally]
litigation is expensive.
however, the State Bar does not use court reporters, they have their clerks use electronic equipment to make CD’s. Nothing could be more corrupt, they lose recordings, forget to turn them on, tape private conversations w/ clients and counsel, and hard to hear.
I don’t know the answer, I do know that when a party orders “dailies”, you usually get a “dirty” in real time and a certified copy the following morning, along with a CD. Nothing could be more helpful, and it keeps everyone honest. I also know what happens if you don’t order “dailies”, and it’s not pretty. Whatever does happen, the AOC nor the JC should have any input in this !!!!!!!
When and until, these two administrative agencies have a proven track record of not having an interest in the out come of trials, they should not be allowed to touch anything that is done in a “judicial” capacity.
That is the biggest problem. Certain judges in the upper echelons don’t like certain verdicts. There is a saying, bad facts make bad law. These judges want to shut out individuals to the court room. They don’t like their corporate masters being sued. However, they don’t mind corporations suing each other. Hell, certain judges don’t even want juries for civil trials. They would like nothing better than to have court trials for all things civil. Then we would all be subject to the system they have in family court. Believe me, that is scary. Rules of evidence don’t apply and a sole, corruptible, person hears the matter.
While I know that court reporters are expensive, they keep the courts, [including judges] honest. That is why certain successful plaintiffs verdicts are untouchable.
Take that away, and you no longer have a legal system, forget justice, which has been completely absent during George’s reign
anna
September 22, 2011
There is one thing that written transcripts offer, that aural/oral ones don’t. When you get certified dailies, you can use them in closing arguments, and juries can have read backs. I can’t think of a more cumbersome method than trying to que up a video, or having to address an argument of opposing counsel. Having written transcripts, along with reading dirties, or comparing what opposing counsel says, at the moment, and being able to respond with an actual cite or compare what counsel just said, with the actual cite he’s referring to cannot be done with cd’s or video.
The oldest trick of a trial lawyer is to say to a jury, “If I remember correctly, so and so said……”, you would be surprised at how faulty his memory is, and what he does, is not misconduct. You see there is no rule against against a faulty memory. However, if you have written transcripts and legal staff that knows the record. Within minutes, and quietly, you can quote and recite “what so and so actually said”. Nothing is more devastating to the opposite side’s case than the truth. And while opposing counsel, did not technically lie, by remembering incorrectly, you area able to give the actual and complete saying to the jury, you gain immense credibility with the jury.
It is no longer a case of who remembers what, or what you remember being said, it then becomes a matter of what actually was said. Nothing is more important in a trial.
That is why the written word cannot be supplanted.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Anna makes some good points. A “dirty” daily is typically chock full of errors, many of them simply silly and easily spotted because even the most recent court reporting software is based on phonetics. Listening more carefully later to an actual recording – particularly when done with modern multi-track equipment – and transcribing to an electronic document can bring accuracy up to essentially 100%. I spoke with some attorneys who were involved in some of the experiments, both trial and appellate, and heard glowing reviews of the final products produced from multi-track recordings that were transcribed. The current technology bears no resemblance whatsoever to what was around in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Two of the major manufacturers of the equipment are Sony and Lanier. Early versions handled 8 tracks. I saw one in operation in a non-legal setting that handled 12 tracks independently.
In spite of this, a “dirty daily” is much better than nothing for the trial lawyer who wants to prepare his/her final argument. The cost of such to trial counsel could be nothing more than the cost of a blank DVD which is handed to the clerk.
Control of the recordings is definitely a major issue. I believe it should be handled totally at the local court level. The recording files are electronic. They can be copied in seconds and a copy handed to each counsel at the end of the day. Backup copies for storage at the courthouse are easy to prepare also. There is no logical reason why there should be any permanent losses of such electronic files. Loss of such records is a non-issue if handled correctly.
It is time to put science and technology to work and set all the emotions and history aside. The amount of money that could be saved each year by the use of current technology is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
You’re crazed if you think the court bureaucrats would ever allow a party to hand a blank CD to the clerk for a copy of the proceedings. If they ever get control, the fees would hit the roof. Court reporters fees are controlled by statute. More importantly, as Anna points out, the court reporter is impartial and keeps the parties honest. Why don’t you put your blathering aside and realize court reporters are the best? Believe me, the citizen will pay through the nose and other orifices if the bureaucrats get their way and it will be an inferior product! I transcribed a tape of a small claims matter once, and even knowing three of the four speakers, it was a total pain to get through. Do you type, sir? The courts would need a league of typists to get through proceedings that court reporters fly through. As I said, over and over, they use the latest technology and they make sure it is good technology as they work hand in hand with the software vendors and demand a good product that they pay thousands for — of their own money! Obviously you have some strange interest in this, but it isn’t for the best product out there now. If the bureaucrats take over, the justice system is doomed. Inferior products for sky-high prices. It will happen. People sentenced to state prison deserve better than a tape recording.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 22, 2011
I think we can work with anna’s definition of what the JC/AOC shouldn’t be engaged in here, though we have to admit being challenged by her use of acronyms we don’t understand and would like to know more [about BAJI por ejemplo] so we can flush this item out better for laypersons [like legislative aides and the general public]
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Book of Approved Jury Instructions
anna
September 22, 2011
BAJI It means B____ Appproved Jury Instructions, even I’m not sure what the B stands for, it might mean Barclays’ or Board, they are published by a committee in L.A. CACI are California Approved Jury Instructions, which are published by the JC. They are extremely redundant. why? Because BAJI which has been around for decades, has the copy right to the actual words used in the jury instructions, so CACI had to use different words that mean the same thing. So, Geogre and co, reinvented the wheel with CACI. [sound like anything else we know??? ccms??] And because CACI has the imprimatur of JC on it, judges will often defer to them. And those are the ones certain justices have attempted, and actually toyed with.
Sorry for the confusion.
I take exception of “dirties” being chock full of errors. They are the direct feed that you get from real time, and yes, names or formal nouns are unreadable, however, they can’t be shown to the jury, but the legal staff reads along as the testimony comes in, and can flag any important parts, at the time. One wouldn’t be able to do that with aural/or oral recordings. [Certified Dailies can be used to show the jury and they are available the next morning or late that day]. The only people that use the dirties, are the legal staff of the parties. They know what is going on, at the time, and it is not a problem to read back a question from a dirty, if you know the subject matter. They are crucial!!! For trial work at the time.
The issue of what IT is discussing, appellate attorneys and lawyers being able to read or watch, well after the fact, is irrelevant. Court reporters are the only ones allowed to “read back” questions.
Example, “Madame court report, please read back the question”. Rephrasing a question for a witness, does not mean the actual question is being rephrased.Often a new question is being asked. Sometimes for obfuscation, others, so the question “in question” will never be answered.
“Later”, doesn’t cut it when it comes to zeroing in on a cross examination, or direct examination.
In addition, of creating the actual record to review later, by reviewing courts [court of appeal], court reporters offer a service that cannot be duplicated, [at least not easily] in the actual trial, at the time in question.
That is why just because a new idea sounds good, or seems logical, all purposes have to be considered before we throw the baby out with the bath water. That includes all the purposes of having an actual “neutral” court reporter, in the courtroom. They do more that just take down the sounds. They are the only ones allowed to read back the actual questions asked.[ and yes, some lawyers would rather have certain questions erased, as if they were never uttered.]
Yes the price of what court reporters do is high, however, I wouldn’t trade them for the world at this time. Actually, it’s a small price for justice or truth.
anna
September 22, 2011
While questions are important, the answers to those, are the only ones that count. And when someone gets to “rephrase” a question, sometimes, the answer to the first question, never comes into evidence. That’s why legal staff are reading the testimony off real time, and that hours after a day in trial, legal staff continue to reread what happened the day before. We are talking about evidence. That is the only thing that counts in a trial.
anna
September 22, 2011
I do have a question for IT. What happens when the data bases you speak of are corrupted? I do mean by nefarious means. When in court, as I read realtime[an actual program] at/or in the moment, I know what the actual court reporter is recording. How would I be able to do that with a recording, which can be changed or altered. And yes, before realtime [the program] it sometimes occurred. Also, with realtime, not only does the legal staff get to read along with the testimony, judges do to, and often reread the question, in question, before ruling on the objection proposed by counsel.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Well, I suppose one can always think up long shot possibilities but as to courtroom recordings by the means used in several courtrooms around the country, the recording is of one of these types: multi-track audio; video with multi-track audio; or straight video with single track audio. I am not aware of hearing of any such recordings being altered. They are much like what you get on a movie DVD. Right at the end of each day of trial, parties can get copies within minutes by handing a blank DVD disk to the clerk. Detecting an alteration is easy by comparing the disks. These are digital formats, not simple tape recordings. Altering such a digital file to remove certain words would be next to impossible if not outright impossible. I’m not saying it’s absolutely impossible but it would certainly be a difficult task to accomplish.
Delilah
September 22, 2011
You know, we went through this same sideshow of an argument back on AOCWatcher and finally managed to drive a stake through the heart of it there because that wasn’t the place for it. The argument about live reporters vs. ER/DR has gone on forever — and continues — in many venues other than this one. JCW IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT! Not only that, but in this current climate of multitudes of court workers losing their jobs, it is neither the time nor place to pile onto one classification of loyal court employee. Have you no shame, Richard? Give it a rest. Please.
There may be a place for ER/DR in certain types of proceedings, but a tape recorder can’t read back testimony to a jury, leaving out objections and stricken testimony, rather than having to view a video and redact it to exclude such things for play-back to a jury. Not expedient or efficient. Many judges now rely on realtime to the bench in order to take notes or rule on objections. Attorneys in civil litigation also use a realtime feed for instant viewing and daily transcripts. Instant viewing! A live court reporter is the ONLY thing that can provide instant viewing or a verbatim and accurate daily transcript in a death penalty or any other type of case.
All of your vast computer knowledge aside, you may not know the shortcomings of ER/VR/DR in a courtroom setting. In any case, I suggest you tone down the marketing of your incredible knowledge and innovative skills here and instead go do it in an appropriate forum. And I suggest that others who feel compelled — and rightfully so — to defend the value and skill of court reporters not take the bait and launch into a litany of court reporter virtues every time an insult is hurled. When you do that, it only encourages the detractors, and the conversation devolves into long, rancorous and irritating exchanges exactly like the one that took place above.
The bigger issue is that the only workers being laid off in substantial numbers are clerks and court reporters who actually perform court services, while the bean-counters and muckety-mucks in Finance, HR, and Executive Offices, etc., preside like kings and queens over an ever-dwindling number of rank-and-file employees.
Lastly, please bear in mind that a large number of heart-sick court employees — including court reporters — are barely managing to get up and go to work for their last six days, with their final day being September 30. NEXT FRIDAY! All of us here at JCW should be focused on continuing the fight against the Frankenstein Monster — the biggest issue of them all — to at least try to slow the pace of the decimation of local trial courts and their loyal and beleaguered workers.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 22, 2011
Thank You.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Note carefully that those people wouldn’t have to lose their jobs if modern technology were being used. Technology could be their savior. Give it a chance.
One Who Knows
September 22, 2011
Thank you, Delilah!
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
One further clarifying comment might be in order here. The initial recordings would cover everything but that does not obviate the need for a written version. Appellate courts and counsel need that written version as do other folks like CDCR. The written version is prepared by transcribing the recording and anything that shouldn’t be in there – such as audio between client and counsel – is not transcribed.
anna
September 22, 2011
Thank you for the info. on corrupting files, how does that answer the other issue, of doing read backs? or reading along with a transcript? One still has to address the written word. At depositions, there is a court reporter and a videographer. They are used for different purposes. While electronic communications can assist, like wordprocessors, how does one by pass the written word? So jury instructions are on an electric data base instead of a book. How does that help? Maybe I’m just being obtuse, but a judge still has to determine which ones to use, and thereby, make a record of which ones he is going to read to the jury. This is the type of stuff that court reporters create a record of at the time. Unless, you want to turn every lawyer into a electronic and computer specialist, that is not going to happen. While i love new technology, unless you want to devise how COA’s [courts of appeals] review records along with the rules of evidence, i think court reporters should be kept in place. Tape recorders have to be turned on. Court reporters are either in place, or not, and if they are not, the trial cannot proceed.
By the way computers are with the legal staff, so are links to jury instructions along with access to legal libraries, however, we still have to orally communicate this to the judge, and then create a record of what transpired at the oral hearing. The most efficient way is with a court reporter.
Attorneys always file briefs with the court, however, there is no substitute for oral argument, and a way to document [in writing] what actually occurred at that hearing. Your argument might be more appropriate for the redundancy of paper briefs, which is going to be an issue, because of technology, however, putting into writing what transpires in real time at an oral hearing, which is what trials are, and the fluidity and spontaneous responses that are required, needs someone to be able to “create a record and at the same time access it” will require a court reporter.
Commercial IT
September 22, 2011
Anna, you ask good questions and I suspect you have been around quite a few courtrooms. And Delilah, I realize you have too but so have I. But, alas, you are way behind on the technology.
The written word is important. I would never suggest relying solely on video or audio recordings. Electronic files containing text are absolutely essential on appeal. They should be prepared from the recordings.
And now, about those readbacks. There is a system out there, and I have seen it demonstrated (I think it was at the Sacramento Convention Center 2 or 3 years ago), and I think it’s being used in a couple of states, that is the ultimate answer. There are two recordings made. One is comprehensive and never stops except when the court session stops. The other can be stopped at any time. Both are in digital format. The one that can be stopped is controlled from the courtroom by the clerk. It is in a compressed format. I recall it was a proprietary format, highly compressed, and capable of being stopped and played back. The quality was good. It had a slider in the control panel that could be taken back to any point. The jury wouldn’t just hear a court reporter reading testimony back, they would actually see and hear the witness again. The system employed a large screen in the courtroom. This playback could be done during the courtroom proceedings or during jury deliberations. I wish I could remember the name of the company but it eludes me at the moment.
On the subject of jury instructions, I created a tool to use with CALCRIM instructions. It allows the parties to submit tailored and/or standard instructions. They are assembled by the clerk in electronic format. They could be shown to the jury on a large courtroom screen that scrolls slowly as the judge reads the instructions and could be displayed on a monitor in the jury deliberation room. They could be part of a totally electronic record. The overall approach is modular interlocking construction. the instructions can be assembled literally in cyberspace. They contribute code to a fast table of contents generation system. If you haven’t seen this, don’t jump to any conclusions that it doesn’t work. It does. It could be part of a comprehensive electronic records system for the courts. And any one of you can have a demo for the asking.
I note continual references to “tape” recorders by various people. That is technology from many, many years ago. Audio and video recordings now can be digital. An entirely different world.
Oral arguments of trial court motions and oral arguments in appellate courts can, and should be, digitally preserved. In trial courts, the process is as I have described it – current video/audio compression technology recordings. These are then transcribed to produce a written record in Microsoft Word format.
Resistance to the use of such technology, is, I realize, quite high. I have experienced people who argued right in front of me that certain things weren’t possible and when I offered to show it to them, they wouldn’t even look. But sooner or later, those in charge of the purse strings are going to prevail. The Legislature has talked to a pile of experts concerning all this. And they have the purse strings. Everything I have described is possible right now. If any of you doubt any of this, and are going to be in the neighborhood of Shingle Springs, give me a call and stop by. This is not vaporware, it is reality.
Judicial Council Watcher
September 22, 2011
Commercial IT – can we give it a rest yet? Many people have signaled that this forum is the wrong place for this argument and it certainly is not the time for it.
_______________________________________________________________________
Others: We will be composing a post on resources for displaced workers that covers everything from your at-risk unemployment insurance benefits to mortgage assistance programs. If your court, your county or your community offers any kind of assistance programs for their displaced workers (like even a room set up with computers that would serve as a court workers job search center) we want to know about it.
Many who are going to become unemployed probably haven’t written a resume in years or interviewed for a job in years. Skills like these are essential in landing employment and putting people back on their feet. You will find networking to be an essential tool in landing employment. Social networking can add or detract from your search depending on your interests as today, many employers try to find you on facebook, linkedin and elsewhere.
Again, if your union, court, community, city or county is offering any form of employee or unemployment assistance to displaced court workers, please gather that information and forward it to us or be prepared to post it for the benefit of others.
Thanks,
The people at jcw
_____________________________________________
JCW would also like to facilitate resume counseling and interview skills counseling.
If you are an HR professional that is willing to assist displaced workers quickly develop these skills we want to hear from you as well.
Nathaniel Woodhull
September 22, 2011
What did Doctor McCoy always say to Captain Kirk…”He’s dead Jim.” I agree with JCW, wrong forum for this discussion.
antonatrail
September 24, 2011
Speaking of dead horses, here is something shamelessly borrowed from the internet and slightly doctored with editorial license:
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that,
“When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.”
However, in the California administrative office of the courts, strategies are employed such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
4. Arranging to visit other venues to see how others ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse’s performance.
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse’s performance.
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the judicial branch than do some other horses.
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
And of course….
13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.
14. Making sure they all get a retroactive raise!
JusticeCalifornia
September 24, 2011
Ant, this is so funny! LOL.
courtflea
September 22, 2011
ok hate me one last comment. I disagree with you slightly my Deliah dear that the CSR issue is not relevant to this blog. It is a legit issue when you are looking for ways to save money. It could be that it could save money or not, but it is worth looking at. Plus, I would imagine if it were true that some other technology could be used save money over the use of CSRs, well then repalcement would have to be on an attrition basis not mass firings. No can do as a public employer, you must have cause. All avenues and sacred cows must be looked at for streamlining costs. The courts can’t afford it anymore.
Anotrail, I worked in one of the largest trial courts in CA and witnessed death penalty cases to everything else. So I comprende the role of the CSR.
Now what is the next topic? 🙂
One Who Knows
September 22, 2011
Courtflea – I agree all issues must be considered. But, what everyone needs to understand is that civil court reporters generate about $40 million a year which goes into the Trial Court Trust Fund. And that’s who we’re really talking about here is ER in civil matters because NO ONE is ever going to put ER in criminal proceedings. And honest analysis shows that there are no general fund/ state fund associated with employing civil reporters. In addition, to the user fee that yields about $40 million a year, courts are authorized to charge the parties fees for the civil reporters time – wages and benefits depending upon the length of the proceeding. So where’s the alleged savings? Plus, just because you eliminate a court reporter it doesn’t mean you won’t need an ER monitor, more clerks to handle transcript request, handle recorded discs, copying and charging parties for this discs, who and where will the transcripts and discs be stored?All of these functions are now done by reporters at no cost to the courts. And who will transcribe the disc? A court employed transcribed? My point here is that it may SEEM that replacing a human with a machine is a simple and cost effective change. But this issue is far more complicated than most on this blog understand and court reporters contribute far more than you may imagine. Most don’t even know what the Transcript Reimbursement Fund is or that it is completely funded by court reporters so that indigent litigants or groups such as the Western Center on Law on Poverty can obtain free transcripts. And remember to eliminate civil reporters would result in an additional approximate $40 million loss in funding to the trial courts and others losses to those who use the trial court system. And finally, long before there was the Alliance of Judges, AOC Watcher , JCW there was the court reporters and clerks and their unions fighting the fight that we are all fighting now together. The reporters and clerks were the first to take on this battle and have a record in the legiature of winning some of the early changes. And now they are losing jobs left and right. So please, let’s cut the reporters a break on this blog and realize the real sacred cows that must be on the table are
those that the AOC/JC control. The problem is not some woman who chose court reporting as her profession but these incompetent, arrogant, scofflaws who run the AOC.
antonatrail
September 22, 2011
[sigh]
gawd, thank you.
Citizen Ant, a dead horse
One Who Knows
September 22, 2011
Please excuse all of the grammatical errors and tense problems in my last post – it was done by phone. Yikes!
Stuart Michael
September 23, 2011
There are certainly court reporting issues that need to be addressed, but right now our efforts must be on the JC & the AOC and the fiscal & governance issues which threaten the present and future of the courts and everyone else in California that they serve. Focusing on a particular group of court employees (except for local court & AOC bureaucrats) will not help enlist the much-needed support of all court employees.
I’m not a court reporter, but had lots of management and judicial experience with them. There are complex issues that must be dealt with in the long run, but now’s not the time or place. The unstopable march of technology will eventually trump.. The JC & the AOC and the trial courts have tried many times in the past to get rid of CSR’s , with limited success. But they’ll never give up.
CSR’s can be an invaluable asset in the battles that lie ahead, or an formidable opponent if forced to be. With the very existence of the judicial branch in jeopardy we need all the friends and allies we can get.
Personal attacks and name-calling disparagement of peoples’ motives detracts from the purpose of JCW, and even the name-calling slurs of the former and current CJ & the AOC bureaucrats – deserved as they may be – demeans us all. If they hurl slurs at those who challenge them that’s their choice, but we should not respond in kind.
We need to stick together and focus on the issues.
MrsKramer
September 24, 2011
I learned a lot from this thread. It amazes me is how many areas of recording legal documents, case files, proceedings, CCMS, etc., are susceptible to unilateral changes & human error, with little to no checks or balances. I think the courts need to go to the Dept of Real Estate to teach them how to tighten up control of legal documents. Over there, if one write “on” when the meant to write “before”, it can be a multi-million dollar error. I am so sorry to hear of all the many court reporters losing jobs. Seems more record keeping is needed in the courts – not less.