We Must Promptly Restore Court Reporters to Trial Courts Throughout California

• Jurisdiction: California,United States
• Author: By The Honorable W. Kent Hamlin
• Citation: Vol. 29 No. 2
• Publication year: 2016

We Must Promptly Restore Court Reporters to Trial Courts Throughout California

By The Honorable W. Kent Hamlin

Over the past decade, our local court budgets were pummeled by a perfect financial storm. State government overspending on a vast scale combined with a sharp drop in income tax revenue to create a budget deficit of $40 billion in 2008. State judicial administrators compounded our budgetary woes with a series of disastrous financial decisions culminating in the failed CCMS computer networking project, which cost the taxpayers half a billion dollars. As a result, trial court budgets were slashed by almost one-third. Attempts to make up the lost revenue by hiking fines and court fees fell far short of the mark.

Among the many casualties of the budgetary devastation were hundreds of court reporters whose positions were eliminated from civil and other courtrooms where their presence was not strictly required by law. Many of those positions have never been restored. We are now paying the price for the state's shortsightedness.

A court of record without a verbatim record is simply not doing its job. In recent years, we've heard a lot of talk about "access to justice." A key component of access to justice is the meaningful opportunity to challenge a ruling or a judgment on appeal. Litigants who cannot afford to hire a court reporter are being robbed of that opportunity. Without a verbatim transcript, attorneys and judges are left to rely upon their memories and their notes when summarizing and reviewing the evidence at the conclusion of a case.

Accurate transcripts don't just protect litigants. Without a verbatim record, judges and lawyers cannot defend themselves against claims of inappropriate or unethical behavior in court.

One common response to the court reporting crisis is to propose greater reliance on electronic recording. In its overview of the Governor's proposed budget for 2011-2012, the Legislative Analyst's Office suggested that one way to address cuts to court budgets would be for the Legislature to direct trial courts to implement electronic court reporting. Courts have been using electronic recording for years in small claims, unlawful detainer, and traffic cases; some courts use it to record misdemeanor cases as well, including misdemeanor jury trials. But various statutes and court rules prohibit audio recording of most other important court proceedings.

[Page 45]

Is the expanded use of electronic recording a viable option for California's...