But Kentucky Court of Justice CIO Charles Byers said that while video may be a novel approach in the U.S., it is more common internationally.
“Other countries are gravitating very quickly to this more efficient recording of court proceedings,” Byers said. “The most important work product of the court is that in-courtroom court record. But having all of it in living color is hard to improve upon. “
A stenographer’s strike reportedly prompted the initial switch away from court reporters. Byers couldn’t confirm this but said notes left behind by pioneering judge James Chenault show reporter availability was on his mind, noting, “He talked about the fact that the system would never call in sick, it would never need to take a day off, it would never go on vacation. It would simply always be there.”
One benefit Byers sees of having video as the official record is that attorneys can get a copy as soon as a hearing ends, rather than waiting on reporters to finish written transcripts. While real-time reporters provide near-instant transcript drafts that can be consulted during hearings, many other reporters take more time.
Video also captures information not reflected in writing, like vocal inflection and body language.
Kentucky uses an audiovisual system tailored for courtrooms and has worked with its vendor, JAVS, to develop certain features.
The courtroom setup involves several stationary cameras and microphones focused on different court participants, and a matrix switch system that can shift the camera focus onto whoever’s talking. No cameras are pointed at the jury box, to preserve confidentiality and anonymity.
Similarly, a judge looking to privately sidebar with attorneys can activate a white noise generator to mask conversation. A camera and microphone in the judge’s chambers also enables conversations with juveniles or private witnesses that are confidential yet still on the record. Parts of recordings can be marked as confidential, prompting an alert should a staff member try to publish that segment.
With an approach like this, judges rather than court reporters may need to ask people to repeat themselves should they talk over each other or respond to other issues that could make audio unclear.
“When they started rolling this out, there may have been more of a learning curve. I think now our judges understand what's necessary to get a good record at the end of the day,” Byers said.
Deputy court clerks, bench clerks or judges handle turning on the recording system and having it run through a test for sound and visual input.
Clerks can also help index the audio. A traffic court, for example, that expects to hear 100 cases in a day may want to ensure someone can go back and pinpoint the one they need. To handle this, the court has its case management system print barcodes corresponding to the different cases. When each case is called, the bench clerk scans the case code using a barcode integrated with the JAVS system.
Byers draws a significant distinction between using a reporter-free recording system and using automated speech-to-text tools.
“I don’t think [that technology] is ready for courtroom applications. I'm not sure it's even ready for legal applications,” Byers said. “Because if you think about it, words matter the most in court. The difference between ‘I plead guilty’ and ‘I plead not guilty’ is substantial. If that were misinterpreted, the consequences would be dire.”
