In Boston, Massachusetts, I investigated a new form of court reporting called multi-track voice writing. Voice writing involves recording court proceedings by means of the human voice. In the new procedure the voice writer’s whispered speech is recorded on one channel of a multi-track tape recorder. The voice writer dictates the official verbatim record of proceedings in final form. All information necessary for the final transcript, including identification of participants, punctuation, non-verbal activities of participants, and other information required to produce the official transcript, is captured on tape by the voice writer. The voices of the participants in the court proceeding are simultaneously recorded on another track of the multi-track system, the microphones placed before the different speakers being monitored and adjusted by the court writer. Thus, the court has available for replay the voice writer’s official record and the voices of all participating speakers.
Voice writing is a refinement of the stenomask system. In the stenomask system the reporter repeats verbatim the courtroom testimony into a microphone encased in an insulated mask. The voice writer does not use any mask; his speech is received by a standard microphone. Further, the voice writer uses a multi-track system in place of the single track recorder presently used by stenomask reporters. Again, while stenomask reporters are either self-taught or attend courses emphasizing only dictation speed, the voice writer is required to pass a qualifying examination and complete a four to five months training programme, in order to attain dictation proficiency and to learn courtroom procedures and nomenclature.55
A project conducted by the National Center for State Courts in Denver, Colorado,56 evaluated the feasibility of multi-track voice writing as an alternative court reporting system and concluded that voice writing was superior in many respects to manual or machine shorthand.57
First, voice writing enables court reporters to be trained more cheaply and quickly.58 In the United States many courts find it difficult to obtain competent court reporters for either full-time or temporary service. The same problem obtains in New South Wales; in fact, there is a growing shortage of court reporters skilled in shorthand. The limited availability can, in part, be attributed to the length of time required for training. Most new shorthand writers take two or more years to attain the speed and accuracy required to produce a high quality verbatim record, and additional time in court to familiarize themselves with court nomenclature and procedures. On the other hand, multi-track voice writers require less than five months - three to four months of classroom training and several weeks of courtroom exposure.
Second, voice writers can achieve, on average, higher levels of proficiency.59 Where a certified court reporter examination is given in the United States the licensing body usually requires proficiency levels of 175 words per minute for single voice testimony (jury charge, opening statements) and 200 words per minute for multiple-voice testimony (95 per cent accuracy required). These levels are considered difficult for shorthand writers to reach and maintain over a prolonged time period, although very competent shorthand writers can reach higher speeds. Voice writers were tested at speeds of 200 words per minute for single-voice testimony and 220 words per minute for multiple-voice testimony. Voice writers can maintain these speeds over a prolonged period and can dictate at speeds of over 250 words per minute.
Third, the voice writer’s record of the proceedings may be verified.60 In most courts there is no way of checking the court reporter’s notes. The court and counsel are to a large extent dependent upon what the stenotypist or shorthand reporter heard and recorded. Because the voice writing technique preserves both the court reporter’s official record of proceedings and the actual testimony on a single tape, the system allows for simultaneous review of the court reporter’s official record and the courtroom testimony.
Fourth, it is not necessary for a voice writer to be available during the transcription process.61 Since a shorthand writer must be relied upon for the transcript, the record cannot be reviewed until an official transcript is prepared by the court reporter. However, a court reporter may die, become incapacitated or leave the jurisdiction after he has taken his shorthand or stenotype but before he has completed the transcription. Ordinarily, no one else is capable of deciphering his notes. By contrast, if voice writing is used, the court has available the unedited record of proceedings on one track of the tape and the voice writer’s record on the other.
Finally, voice writing is more accurate in recording non-English testimony.62 With manual shorthand or stenotype there is verification neither of the translator’s communication in the foreign language to the participant nor of the statements made by the foreign-speaking participant. Statements made by a voice writer are dictated only in the English equivalent of the foreign-speaking participant’s statements. However, all statements made by the translator and the foreign-speaking participant are recorded on a separate track. If questions arise concerning the accuracy of the translations, the court has available for review a record of both the non-English statements and the translation.
The National Center studies suggest that both multi-track voice writing and audio-recording are in many respects superior to manual or machine shorthand techniques. The remaining question is whether or not voice writing is superior to audio-recording.
The National Center has completed a further study63 showing that audiorecording in New South Wales is superior to manual shorthand in the following respects: it is cheaper; daily transcripts can be finished more quickly - by 4.45 p.m. instead of 7 p.m. - and delayed transcripts can be provided at least as quickly as by manual shorthand trials are faster - no interruptions are caused by a reporter’s inability to hear or by his inability to write shorthand fast enough to keep up with the speakers; mistakes can be more easily corrected; the accuracy of interpretations of a foreign language can be checked; and there are no interruptions caused by court reporters coming into and going from the courtroom.
In the audio-recording system a person in court monitors the recording and takes appropriate notes on a log sheet (spellings, index entries);-typists then transcribe the testimony from the tape recording. The multi-track recording system uses a court reporter who has a more difficult task; in contrast with a “logger” who merely monitors the audio record, a voice writer monitors, and concurrently prepares an official audio record of, the proceedings. Whilst additional personnel are not required for voice writing, a voice writer would receive a higher salary than a “logger”. Again, voice writing uses more sophisticated, and thus more expensive, equipment. On the other hand, the voice writer saves time and expense because he produces a higher quality audio record. The voice writer may require the speaker to repeat inaudible or mumbled statements which are then recorded in the voice writer’s clear diction. Since the record is better the cost of transcription will be lower. Indeed, it has been suggested that the typing rate from voice written material is at least double the rate of typing from direct voice recording. 64
It may be that the lower courts, where there is a high volume of cases but a small number of appeals and requests for transcripts, would be best suited to audio-recording systems. If a court knows which type of proceedings have a high probability of requiring a transcript, voice writers can be used to ensure the highest possible quality of official record. Thus, if a multi-track system is installed, a small pool of voice writers can be on hand to cover proceedings where an appeal is likely. Whatever the ultimate arrangement, the case for multi-track voice writing as an alternative court reporting system is strong, and my recommendation is that it be introduced in New South Wales on an experimental basis.
Shorthand and audio-recording techniques are noiseless and unobtrusive court reporting systems. In the National Center project voice writers were extensively observed by judges, lawyers and court administrators. There was practically unanimous agreement that the demeanour and professionalism of the voice writers were satisfactory and that the voice writing system did not disrupt the trial or distract any participants.65 From my observations in Boston I support this opinion.
Footnotes
55. Multi-Track Voice Writing: An Evaluation of a New Court Reporting Technique, National Center for State Courts, (Executive Summary, 1973) pp. 4-5.
56. Ibid.
57. Id. pp. 74-84.
58. Id. p. 75.
59. Id. pp. 75-76.
60. Id. p. 76.
61. Id. p. 78.
62. Id. p. 84.
63. Court Reporting: Lessons from Alaska and Australia, National Center for State Courts (1974).
64. Ebersole, “Improving Court Reporting Services”, Federal Judicial Center, (1972) p. 11.
65 Multi-Track Voice Writing: An Evaluation of a New Court Reporting Technique, (October, 1973) p. 82.
