Why Realtime Reporting Matters in the Courtroom
For readback, annotation and immediate access to reliable transcripts, nothing beats realtime court reporting—not even digital recording
Even if you have been tempted to look into digital recording for courtroom events, you should be advised that realtime reporting is absolutely the most accurate method for court reporting today. Read on to learn some of the main reasons that support realtime so that you can make an informed decision about the best type of reporting for your case.
Digital vs. Realtime: Annotation and Monitoring of Inputs
The majority of digital recording systems use a central control room where one monitor is keeping track of up to four courtrooms at the same time. This translates to at any given time, one quarter of the court proceedings are actually capable of being searched. With realtime reporting, however, attorneys, Judges and clients can access the testimony immediately. A Judge can even review or mark portions or take notes on their own version of the transcripts. It’s also easier to look for specific phrases or other inputs in this situation.
Digital vs. Realtime: Readback
How easy it is to search a digital audio record depends a great deal on the ability of the tape operator as it relates to annotation. If the court requests a readback with digital recordings, it can be frustrating, not possible, or the cause of numerous delays. In any case, none of these are ideal. A computerized court stenographer, though, can accommodate requests for readback within seconds and can even allow parties in the courtroom to analyze the record to see what was actually said. Attorneys also have access to this information in a text format on their laptops immediately, making it much easier.
Digital vs. Realtime: Reliability
Often, problems with digital recordings are not known until it’s too late. The success of digital recording relies on the audio being captured properly. With the potential to capture private conversations or other background noise, getting an accurate and high-quality recording back is always at risk with a digital recording.
Digital vs. Realtime: Transcription and Record Review
Reviewing a complete audio record takes a lot of time, and the majority of attorneys and judges do not want to have to listen to the full-length recording. If a case is moved on to the appeal process, the digital audio has to be sent on to a transcriber for the proper production of the transcript.
With realtime, attorneys and judges can both review and annotate the testimony during the proceedings. Notes taken from a court reporter’s transcript can also easily be put into a printed report or cut-and-pasted onto a screen.
Digital vs. Realtime: Actual Products
While an audio recording system can generate a recording, a stenographic reporter will produce the transcript electronically and the final paper transcript accurately. Regardless of what either of those are needed for, it’s more efficient to get both at the same time.
While the realtime court reporter or stenographic reporter might initially seem more expensive, this is not the case when you factor in the ability to read back and review materials immediately and the potential for getting both the paper and electronic version at the same time.
Boss Reporting provides nationwide court reporting services for trials, depositions, mediations, arbitrations, conferences and meetings as well as closed captioning. To learn more about how realtime reporting can benefit you, call us at 954-467-6867 or simply request a quote.