Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court: No First Amendment right to audio recordings of court proceedings when there's a printed transcript
By adamg on Mon, 03/18/2013 - 10:58am
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today a filmmaker making a documentary about a Somerville cop convicted of child rape has no right to a stenographer's audio recording of the trial because he was able to buy a copy of the official transcript she produced.
At issue is recordings made during the trial of Keith Winfield, a Somerville police officer convicted in 2007 burning and raping his infant niece with a hot object while he babysat her.
Steve Audette, a film producer, is currently making a documentary that, according to the Supreme Judicial Court "will examine, among other things, [the defendant's] continued assertion of innocence in light of the evidence presented at trial." After he bought a copy of the official printed transcript, he asked for copies of the "room recording" she had used to check the accuracy of her transcription.
Audette argued he had a right to the recording under both his First Amendment and "the common-law right of access to judicial records."
However, the state's highest court said that the judicial record in question is the official transcript, not a recording used to compile it:
While the right of access of the public to a trial may ensure access to a room recording that, because of the absence of a court reporter, is the official record of the trial, it does not apply to a backup room recording where, as here, a court reporter prepared a certified transcript of the trial that constitutes the official record of the trial.
The court added:
Where the court file includes or reflects an official record of the proceeding, whether that be a certified transcript or an electronic recording made by the session clerk, we conclude that a room recording does not satisfy this test. Where an official record of the proceeding is available to the public, a presumption of public access to an unofficial record is more likely to generate public confusion than to aid public understanding. The appropriate vehicle for the public to monitor court proceedings is the official record, not a backup room recording that is used to assist in ensuring the accuracy of the official record.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Free, open source Plover stenographic software
Encourage Commonwealth of Massachusetts and City of Boston to use free, open source Plover stenographic software, pronounced like the name of the bird. Click on the speaker icon at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plover for the pronunciation.
See also
http://plover.stenoknight.com/
https://groups.google.com/group/ploversteno
Very nice
As I was posting that article, I wondered how long before you'd jump in. 18 minutes, not too shabby!
he may be a one-trick pony, but it's a solid trick
thezak might not be my first choice as dinner party conversationalist (sorry dude), but his concern about the lack of transparency in Boston government is completely legitimate and something the public should be getting more PO'ed about.
Where are the checks and balances on the court stenographer?
What keeps the stenographer from rewriting history?
....and why are we still using stenographers as the primary official record system, when digital audio recording is easy as pie? Anyone should be able to listen to the original recording.
Basically, because
Recording technology is still not great and because sound is funky. Court proceedings are not talk shows at which there are sound technicians available with lapel mics. The proceedings are recorded, but the stenographer often types or records their own version of the proceedings so that they can clarify later.
As far as "checks and balances" are concerned, because these digital recordings do exist, the transcripts could be checked against the recording, if you know, you don't mind spending days re-listening for a possible typo.
Yet another anon reading comprehension PHAIL
No, they couldn't - because as quoted above the SJC said the public doesn't have any right to that primary record if a different one exists - one that has passed through a court stenographer's ears, brain and fingers before it becomes the only record to which we are allowed access. An individual who might conceivably be tired, sloppy, suffering progressive hearing loss, or - worst case - corrupt.
As to your supposition that "recording technology is still not great" - what a load of baloney. This isn't a live shot from the Mass Ave and Boylston intersection - it's a court room, with a majority of the spoken communication taking place from pre-determined, seated positions - or, in the case of the lawyers arguing the case, from a small area about the size of a large living room rug.
Recording technology is still not great?!
This statement doesn't pass the sniff test. I smell loads of bullshit!
Recording the sound field for
Recording the sound field for an entire room is a nightmare for film sound recordists with million-dollar budgets. Somehow I don't think state employees have licked that problem either.
The system varies by court.
The system varies by court. The older Superior Courts still use independent stenographers, but the newer courthouses with better sound systems are recording as well. Many of the district courts have switched to recording as a primary record -- check out the Boston Municipal Court, where you can request a CD of any proceeding because the house is newer and wired for sound. However, the system is not foolproof, mics go down and there is always the risk of accidental loss. Plus, the older courthouses are so noisy and badly designed that the judge can barely hear the lawyers, so recordings are unreliable (see Lynn District).
Counterintuitive City Councilors
Boston City Council RFB Request For Bids will be this year for stenographic services. The RFB needs to be rewritten for Scopists http://www.scopists.com/ with the latest available technologies and software. Grandfathering in the usual stenographic services costs more using out of date technology. New technologies and software, for example free open source Plover stenographic software, cost less and have more features like Captioning on webcasts of the Public Meetings of Boston City Council for folks hard of hearing. But the current crop of City Council staff deflect enquiries about improving stenographic services to grandfather in as has been done for decades the same stenographic services. A bad practice that could be stopped.
The irony is that the new technologies and software would benefit City Councilors campaigns and disseminate their words more widely.
OK, I now find
Myself agreeing with The Szak. If we can get transcriptions, then the video could be captioned too so hard of hearing, deaf and ESL viewers can have access.