|
Authored by: Chromatix on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT |
Ah, so the court reporter (stenographer) is taking down the testimony only in
shorthand. During the readback, the reporter can read that shorthand because
they have the training. The jurors generally only read plain English, so
having
the shorthand wouldn't be helpful.
But in that case, I think I can
stand by my (very much lay) analysis. The jury
thinks they've detected an
internal inconsistency in Dr. Mitchell's testimony, and
they want to be sure
about it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
I was a juror on a case where we asked for transcripts. We drove them nuts. I
find it hard to believe that producing them cannot be too difficult in this
modern age, but they had to carefully remove all of the sections containing
material discussed while we were out of the room.
We needed it because there was a recollection by some that one of the witnesses
made an important point, but we couldn't recall exactly who and when or even if
that recollection was true. The transcripts were important and very useful.
To be honest, I don't understand why it is not standard practice. We sat through
4 weeks of evidence. We were understandably instructed that our notes, whilst an
aid to memory, were not evidence. As very few jurors would know shorthand, notes
will always contain holes, miss things that would later appear relevant, and mix
verbatim statements with interpretations.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT |
Groklaw volunteers are amazing - they manage transcripts within hours based on
their hearing; I would assume a standard (of some kind) shorthand is by
/professional/ court stenographers so I cannot belive that only one person could
read the log - there ought to be someone who could transcribe it, especially as
the testimony is going to be re-read from somewhere.
Also with the improvement in text-to-speech software, could the original
testimony be played through such software (when given) and the result checked in
comparison with the stenographer's log.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
The court reporter will only create a
transcript (a process
that takes days or even weeks) if one is
needed for appeal after the
trial.
I don't think that's accurate. If you look at a
typical transcript
entry on one of the Groklaw timelines, you'll see something
like this:
Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial
Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the
Clerks Office
public terminal or may be purchased through
the Court Reporter/Transcriber
until the deadline for the
Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it
may be
obtained through PACER.
This would seem to imply
that the transcript would be
available at some point in time regardless of
whether the
verdict is appealed.
--- "When I say something, I put my
name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|