The
Voice Writing Method of Court
Reporting
The Court as Consumer
The means of court reporting have been in flux since the advent of the
second Industrial Revolution. We fully understand that multimodal
biometrics will define
the new human-to-machine interface. In fact, voice writers are living
examples of
the commercial application of this evolution in today's marketplace. We
live in a "realtime"
world where "instant" is in high demand, including translation,
e-transcripts, streaming text
and video, instant messaging technology; and
where untold numbers of new real-time applications are now forming in
the minds
of our students. We're also cognizant that yesterday's
Commodore-64 and Macintosh users are today's judges, and yesterday's
Super Mario players are today's attorneys.
The emergence of multimodal communications confirms that human
interaction is carried over many distinct channels, or wavelengths.
Life-and-death situations, contentions over millions of dollars,
interpersonal disputes which spill over into litigation are matters
which were borne of multiple-wavelength, human-to-human interaction,
and
over which humans will try to convince other humans who was right and
who was wronged. The English language's enormous complexities mean that
it will take many decades to reach Star Trek capabilities.
Thus, humans will always be required to determine the meaning of what
they
try to communicate, and they will always seek another human to mediate
and ferret out meaning.
While speech recognition may be rapidly nearing
levels of accuracy amenable to general consumer acceptance, the legal
world demands perfect understanding of communications where real
capital is on the line. Any recording system which processes only one
aspect of human communication is insufficient to determine the true
meaning of what was communicated. Only a human reporter can decipher
the complex process of human communication across its many channels --
hearing, seeing, and sometimes feeling.
A person who reduces an electronically captured recording to a series
of printed words
(i.e. a CourtSmart operator), is not reporting from a first-person, or
even an
eyewitness, point of view -- this person is reporting only second-hand
information, because the inhuman machinery recorded merely a
one-dimensional string of words. In multimillion
dollar-verdict cases, or where a person's liberty hinges upon the
perfect
transcription of a single word, the courts must have an accountable,
liable,
insurable person to guard the record. End User License Agreements
which attempt to hold the makers of hardware and software harmless for
problems which cause inaudible or undecipherable transcripts are
simply unacceptable. Thus, we believe the judiciary will
always seek to make a competent human the responsible guardian of a
true and accurate record of human communication.