My first experience in a real court! I was sitting in with Dennis, a reporter in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, whom I had met at the Greater Washington Shorthand Reporters Association in the spring. He had assured me then that his judge would love to have an intern sitting in, and I took him up on his offer.
Dennis began by showing me around his office and then the courtroom. At the D.C. District Court, the reporters are employed by the court, but maintain a lot of autonomy (this helps in the argument to allow them to keep copy sales). Dennis had been provided with an office and a file cabinet, but just about everything else in the office -- the computer, the furniture, etc. -- was all provided by him.
In the courtroom, the bench was on a raised podium, and Dennis was directly in front of him, in an island area shared with the deputy clerk. The witness was off to one side of the judge, behind the island, and then directly in front of the island were two tables, one for plaintiffs and one for defendants. The jury box was off to the side. I originally started out in front of the island, but since there was no jury, Dennis suggested I might go beside the jury box (which I was happy to do, since it did feel a bit exposed out there!).
I met the judge, who was very nice and who looked just like a judge out of Central Casting -- silver hair, firm jaw, grave yet friendly demeanor. After some preliminary motions in other cases, the attorneys came in for the main case -- and my eyes widened. LOTS of attorneys at each table! Fortunately, Dennis had provided me with notes from yesterday, so I was able to identify and recognize the main players. While each table handily had at least 6 attorneys around it, there were no more than two main spokespeople at each one.
The case involved insurance recovery, and the witness, continuing his testimony from the day before, was an expert in construction. I was back to the steeplechases, as he spoke very quickly and, in fact, often doubled back around on his sentences. That, coupled with the specialized language, made it a challenge to keep up! (A challenge which I did not always meet.)
During the breaks, though, I had a chance to chat with the witness. Since I was basically right at his feet, it seemed sort of natural, and he was a very nice guy. (Overall, it's sort of interesting to see the dynamic between the witness and the court reporter. It seemed to me, a lot of times, that the witness was drawn to the court reporter. Part of it might have been that the court reporter is not a party, and thus is sort of a neutral person to chat to. Often, the witness seemed sort of isolated -- they couldn't talk to "other side" easily, and even with their own attorneys might have felt constrained (and, of course, a lot of times the attorneys were too busy preparing their material to be able to chat). Also, as a court reporter, you're often looking at the witness, hanging on their word, listening very intently, and I think it can be hard not to respond to that. At our school, we've talked about maintaining a professional and neutral demeanor with the attorneys; I think it's also important to do that with the witness, as well.)
One of the parties had requested expedited delivery, so on August 25 Dennis only took down the morning testimony. In the afternoon, an outside service sent in someone to take down the second half of the day's testimony. I was surprised to see that it was a stenomask reporter!
Chris was a super guy, and it was fascinating and comforting to have a chance to talk with him. I had not realized, for example, that stenomask reporters have their own association (NVRA -- National Voice Reporters Association?), and that their certification speed requirements actually go up to 240 wpm!
In talking with Chris, I was impressed with how very professional he was, and how seriously he took transcription. He did not in any way seem to feel that machine reporters were on the way out; he was very respectful of the ability to do machine shorthand. For my part, talking with him made me realize that a good stenomask reporter is a trained professional, just like we are. I had always pictured "worst case" stenomask reporters, where any warm body could go in and stumble through. Talking with Chris made me think about how difficult it really would be to work as a stenomask reporter and about the talents and training that would go into reporting in this manner. You can get good and bad in all kinds, and the fact that there can be bad stenomask reporters doesn't make them a threat, just as bad court reporters are not a threat to electronic recording.
In a way, I began seeing what Bill Oliver, who spoke to the Greater Washington Shorthand Reporters Association last spring, was saying back then in a new light. He spent a great deal of time talking about how we should not be tied to thinking of ourselves as people who operate a particular machine, but as information processors. At the time, I must admit I pooh-poohed what he said as overly simplistic. I understood the point that our job is to take the record, not push buttons, and we should use whatever tools are available, but as someone who LIKES machine shorthand, I wasn't satisfied to think, "Well, I could just process the information in another way." But talking with Chris about stenomask reporting, I started to see that with something as complex as a verbatim record, you can't just change the system of recording without taking safeguards to preserve the integrity of the record in some other way. A verbatim record is a precious and complex thing, no less so for whatever method of recording is used.
But -- there was no doubt that what impressed Chris the most about machine writers was realtime translation. No two ways around it -- the biggest advantage machine writers have is realtime translation, and we all need to have that as our goal.
By August 26, there were only a few questions left, so it was not necessary to call in another reporter. The questioning was finished, and then the judge reviewed the information and discussed procedure with the attorneys for how to schedule the rest of the case.
I enjoyed going to the courthouse and seeing what the procedures were like there. There was terrific camaraderie (it seemed to me) between different members of the court team, and it's always fun to be in that type of atmosphere (I also enjoyed that atmosphere way-back-when when I did jury duty). Of course, you don't have the control as a court reporter that you have in a deposition, in terms of starting and stopping the proceedings. At the D.C. District Court, the courtrooms are wired for sound, so Dennis did have a tape that he could refer to, but . . . maybe I'll just start with depositions! <G>
Lessons Learned:As important as charts are with depositions, they are even more important with trials with numerous attorneys.
Stenomask reporters are not the enemy; people who don't keep a good record are.
Just as in depositions, witnesses and attorneys at court proceedings can be good sources of info on terminology, names, etc. (you just may not have as much time iwth them as you would at a depoition).
If regarding ourselves as "information processors" detaches us from considering ourselves as "machine operators" only, then it also imposes upon us the responsibility to, if we choose to use machines, to use them in the most efficient, responsible way possible.
Would you like to go to the next internship experience or return to the main page of the Court Reporting Students' Online Support Center?