Technology and the Texas
Judiciary
Julie Wade
To maintain an able, honest, and
enlightened judiciary should be the
first object of every people.”
President Sam Houston addressing
the Sixth Congress of the Republic of
Texas, November 1, 1841.
This will be a four-part report briefly
summarizing the impact technology
is having on the Texas judiciary. Part 1,
How We Make the Record, focuses on the
official record of our proceedings, and
courtroom technology available today.
Part 2, The Texas Path to NIEM, will focus
on the National Information Exchange
Model, a project to be completed by
October 31, 2007, that will develop and
establish common standards for the sharing
of information systems between our
various state governmental and judicial
agencies. Part 3 will focus on the Judicial
Committee on Information Technology
(JCIT), who they are, what they do, and
the impact of their role that keeps our
courts current with technology. Part 4 will
focus on the Office of Court
Administration (OCA), how they plan for
all these changes thrust at them from JCIT
and other agencies, and how they find the
funds to do it all.
I hope that you will learn from this
series, as I am learning, that we are looking
ahead to a bright future of accessibility
and ease of use that technology brings
both to our workplace and the judiciary.
Part 1, How We Make the Record
The Official Transcript
A stenographic verbatim record of court
proceedings is made in most Texas trial
courts and Judges at the district court level
and above appoint their own official court
reporters. A person may not be appointed
to be an official court reporter unless they
are certified as a shorthand reporter by the
Texas Supreme Court. (Sec. 52.021(a),
Government Code.) A certified copy of
the reporter’s record is required for the filing
of all civil appellate proceedings in the
State of Texas. (Rule 35.3(b), Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure.) Depositions
introduced into evidence at trial that are
conducted in the State of Texas must be
recorded by a certified shorthand
reporter.1 (See Ch. 52.021 of the
Government Code, with the exception of
depositions on written questions, depositions
of persons who reside outside of
Texas or outside the United States, or depositions
of witnesses who are members of
the United States Armed Forces, or are
civilians employed by the Armed Forces,
may be administered by notary publics,
Sec. 20.001, CPRC.) (See also, Enrolled
H.B. 1518 that becomes effective September
1, 2007, adding additional registration
requirements to Sec. 52.001 of the
Government Code relating to circumstances
under which national court reporting
firms, shorthand reporting firms, and
affiliate offices are considered to provide
services in this state.)
Who owns the official record is currently
under review by the Senate
Committee on Jurisprudence and is a hot
issue of debate between the Texas Court
Reporters Association (TCRA) and the
proponents of the bill. The official transcript
is currently the property of the official
court reporter assigned to a Texas state
court. If a transcript of a court proceeding
is required, that person may apply in writing
for a transcript of the evidence reported by the official court reporter. The official
court reporter shall furnish the transcript
upon payment of the transcript fee
or as provided by Rule 40(a)(3) or 53(j),
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. (See
Section 52.047(a), Texas Government
Code.) Upon payment of the amount of
the transcript fee or as provided by Rule
40(a)(3) or 53(j), Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the person requesting the transcript
is entitled to an original and one
copy of the transcript. (See Section
52.047(c), Texas Government Code.) The
amount charged by an official court
reporter for furnishing the transcript is set
by the reporter. If a party objects to the
fee, the judge will determine a reasonable
fee taking into account the difficulty and
technicality of the material transcribed,
and any time constraints imposed by the
requesting party. (See Section 52.047(b),
Texas Government Code.)
Legislation is currently pending in the
Senate Jurisprudence Committee (S.B. 179)
that proposes to amend Sec. 52.047 of the
Government Code to provide that the official
transcript of court proceedings is the
property of the court, not the court
reporter. Anyone needing a transcript
would apply for the transcript through the
clerk who would provide notice to the
court reporter. The Committee believes
that the transcript should be treated as any
other court document, and any fees associated
with the preparation of the transcript
should be received by the court.
The court would require the clerk to preserve
these documents for three years and
to establish a reasonable transcription fee.
(See Senate Committee on Jurisprudence
Interim Report to the 80th Legislature,
December 2006.)
There would be many benefits of transferring
ownership of the official record to
the court. Appellate Courts will benefit by
having access to a complete electronic
record. Fees would be uniformly set
across the state for accessing the record for
appellate purposes so attorneys and their
clients would pay the clerk the same established
rates for accessing transcripts.
Courts would save money by having the
electronic record stored on their servers in
conjunction with their other electronic
case files (pleadings and motions).
The Transcript
A. The CAT Transcript
If you have a criminal or civil trial in a
state trial court in Texas today2, or require
that a deposition be conducted in this
state, a court reporter will take down the
verbatim record of the proceedings with
the use of a steno machine which is
equipped with a diskette drive. When a
party orders a transcript of the proceeding,
the reporter uploads the data from
their diskette to a computer where CAT
software (computer aided transcription)
processes the keystrokes against the
reporter’s personal dictionary (just like the
personal dictionary you build in Word)
and translates them into English. The
reporter will then read and edit the transcript,
correct any mistakes, add proper
names and terminology not contained in
the dictionary, and add punctuation and
formatting to the transcript. The final
result is the official transcript.
B. The Realtime CART Transcript
Realtime reporting (Computer Aided
Realtime Translation, “CART”), has been
introduced with great enthusiasm here as
well as throughout the country. Realtime
basically evolved from the CAT software.
Realtime provides an almost instantaneous
text of the words spoken in the courtroom
or at a deposition on your computer monitor
via the Internet. Therefore, Realtime
reporting combines the writing, translating
and editing features of the CAT software
into a single function. The court
reporter no longer uploads the diskette
into their own CAT software, the CART
software provides the final product to anyone
via an internet connection. Your
client, witness or attorney can monitor the
testimony reported in Realtime a few seconds
after the words are spoken in the
comfort of their office. The Americans
With Disability Act also recognizes CART
as an assistive software to aid the hearing
impaired during official proceedings.
During a court proceeding, judges and
attorneys benefit from Realtime reporting
by having a trial transcript available to
review each night. During the trial, the
judge, attorneys and paralegals can review
and note portions of the testimony within
their copies of the Realtime feed on their
own computers without interrupting the
proceedings. Case management software
such as LiveNote, Trial Director, CT
Summation and Concordance can receive
the Realtime feed and allow you to house
the testimony with your other case information.
LiveNote provides the ability to
allow you to tag and key word search the
live testimony. You can even write a note
or text message during a live testimony
and send it to the attorney conducting the
proceeding in the courtroom or at the
deposition with LiveNote’s built-in Instant
Messaging feature. (Hi Jill, sorry your
examination is going poorly, but hang in
there, you can rehabilitate your witness
tomorrow….)
The next step for Realtime CART software
will be to incorporate live video webcasting
with the synched transcript of the
testimony. To see an example of how webcasting
is used in the courtroom today,
check out the Supreme Court of Texas
website. With the gracious assistance of
St. Mary’s University School of Law, the
Supreme Court of Texas hosts live audio
and video streaming webcasts of its oral
arguments. Archives of oral arguments
(from March 20, 2007 to the present) are
available for downloading.
Stenographic Realtime reporting of certain
proceedings, such as capital cases,
could well be utilized throughout the state
for the obvious reasons and benefits it
would provide.
The Nonstenographic Record
Among the most prevalent trends occurring
throughout the country in the judiciary
today is a movement away from a stenographic
record and the deployment of
nonstenographic electronic recordings
(digital audio and/or video) to preserve
the record in certain proceedings. Texas
law does not sanction or prohibit the use
of electronic court recording equipment
operated by a non-certified court reporter
if performed according to rules adopted or
approved by the Texas Supreme Court.
(Sec. 52.021(e), Government Code.) The
Texas Supreme Court has the authority to
consent to the use of any method of court
reporting. (Sec. 52.021(c)(4), Government
Code.) The Court has authorized the use
of electronic court recording in certain
jurisdictions through the approval of local
rules. (TRCP 3a.) Texas employs stenographic,
voice writing, audio and video
recording methods to keep the official
record.
Among the countless studies conducted
on the issue of nonstenographic reporting,
the National Center for State Courts
(NCSC) queried the Court2Court listserv
in May 2005 with the following question:
“A constituent is requesting information on
the use of digital audio recording in court
proceedings. Specifically, do you use digital
audio recording for specific case types? If so,
which ones?” Twelve states responded,
along with a representative for the federal
courts. (See Technology, Court Reporting,
Digital Audio Recording and Case Type
Memorandum, May 19, 2005, NCSC). The
responses reveal the use of digital audio
recording as the official record in these
states in all or certain case types. FTR (For
the Record) is one type of software these
courts use for digital audio recording.
Other states, California and Florida, have
recently amended their statutes to allow
for nonstenographic reporting. Florida
courts are on the cutting edge of utilizing
electronic recording in their courts. (See
The Evolution of Electronic Court
Reporting, presented by the Ninth Judicial
Circuit Court, Orange and Osceola
Counties, Florida [www.ninja9.org].
How we make, maintain, deliver and
store the official record of our court proceedings
in Texas and access that record is
no doubt undergoing a sea change. Both
stenographic and nonstenographic recording
methods will impact and improve how
we make and distribute the official record
in the future. In addition to the cost benefits,
there are many other reasons to use
digital video and audio recordings to
maintain the record in certain proceedings.
Digital recordings are portable, they
can also be copied to CD or DVD, they
can be conveyed as attachments to an email
message or downloaded over the
web, and they can be played back on any
device capable of playing CDs and DVDs,
and when saved on the court’s server, they
can be played back on any PC connected
to that LAN. When properly indexed, segments
of a digital recording can be played
back almost instantaneously.
Courtroom Technology
The Harris County courthouse is a fine
example of what the Texas courtroom of
the future can be. Through the superb
work of Judge Ken Wise of the 152nd
Judicial District Court, working together
with the County’s technology subcommittee
(comprised of District Court judges,
county court and probate court representatives),
they have designed the most technologically
advanced courthouse implementing
sophisticated media presentation
systems and advanced technological components
available today. The new Harris
County Courthouse should serve as a
model for the future as we move to incorporate
technology into the Texas judiciary.
To see a video of the most technologically
advanced courthouse in the world, visit
You Tube. Part 1,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xado4Pqt0g; and Part 2, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_HIk6BSGQ.
The JCIT and OCA published findings
of their joint study conducted on the technology
infrastructure and case management
software used in Texas’ trial courts
and clerk’s offices throughout the state.
(See JCIT and OCA Trial Court Survey
2001.) Technology funding and training
seems to be the primary concern gleaned
from the report. This need apparently will
be met as our courts take the steps to
move toward national XML standards (i.e.,
GIXDM/NIEM) for summary-level court
reporting. The OCA reports in the Winter
2007 issue of CourTex Judicial Branch
News, that it currently has two major
requests for funding for projects. The Trial
Court Technology project ($500,000)
would enable it to fund case management
software, collections software and Internet
connectivity projects in local courts with
JCIT’s guidance. The Department of
Information Resources (DIR) is in the
process of issuing an RFO for a hosted
court case management system. Also, the
Texas Appeals Management and E-Filing
System (TAMES) project ($3.5M) will
bring e-filing and electronic document circulation
into the appellate courts. Experts
have also been consulted from the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC)
whose goal is to have all states comply
with nationwide technology standards for
statistical report exchanges.
In 2008, the Texas Office of Court
Administration (OCA) will publish a special
report (“Trends Report”) focusing on
significant trends and issues that have
occurred in the judicial system over the
past 20 years. I look forward to receiving
their report.
Access to an open record
In conclusion, two further bills – S.B. 237
and H.B. 819, would direct the Supreme
Court to develop rules for justice court efiling.
Issues being addressed include JP’s
internet access, e-filing and pro-se filings.
This will bring us into an age of an efficient
and cost-effective total electronic
record. How nice it will be to go to a
technologically advanced courtroom to
hold your proceedings, and then be able to
access the court’s web page and not only
download a brief or motion of interest to
you, but download the deposition transcripts,
the trial transcript and videos of
the proceedings if taken, download any
electronic exhibits you want, and pay one
uniform price established state-wide to
access all this information. A dream come
true!
Julie Wade, Legal Assistant, ACED
Harrison, Bettis, Staff, McFarland &
Weems, LLP. Member, Publications
Committee, Paralegal Division, State Bar of
Texas
1. Although the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
provide that a notary public or anyone else
upon stipulation of the parties and counsel can
administer a deposition, the Office of the
Attorney General of the State of Texas opined
that Section 52.021 of the Government Code
trumps the rule and thus only certified shorthand
reporters can administer a deposition in
the State of Texas. (See Opinion No. DM-308,
Office of the Attorney General of the State of
Texas, December 5, 1994.)
2. The federal courts are instituting electronic
court reporting methods to record the record.
The Bankruptcy Court employs audio recordings
to record proceedings, and some District
Courts audio record certain preliminary proceedings.
|
