“A person listening to a recording is not someone who was in the courtroom. If you ask me … that’s where you can have quality issues,” she said. Concerns over this change are not limited to the court reporter community. Martin W. Healy, chief operating officer and chief legal counsel of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has said that he and his colleagues are worried about the effect of installing FTR.“People’s freedom and lives are on the line. The only way to accomplish the administration of justice is with the gold standard, which is live court reporters,” he said. Specifically,...MORE
Opinion below image...
Opinion - I think the article states the concerns well. People's lives and futures are hanging in the balance. Is that something we want to trust to technology when it can easily be handled by a professional in the courtroom, as it has been for over 50 years? A court stenographer who is involved in the proceedings can control the environment - make sure all dialogue is clear and understandable. A live court reporter can also reference a transcript on the spot - read back the spoken word on the spot. A recording cannot do that. FTR recordings will be transcribed by a third party after the fact. So having ANOTHER person transcribe audio (which may or may not be clean) is going to save money and be more efficient? Not a chance. There may technology at some point that can do this job, but it won't be in the near future.
Marc Greenberg