BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2657
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 2657 (Calderon) - As Amended: April 10, 2012
PROPOSED CONSENT
SUBJECT : ELECTRONIC COURT REPORTING: INAUDIBLE RECORDING
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF AN ELECTRONIC COURT
RECORDING NOTE WHEN THE RECORDING IS INAUDIBLE?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
In very limited instances today, an electronic recording can be
used to establish a record in a court proceeding if no court
reporter is available. While the electronic recording may serve
as a record of the proceedings, often a transcript is made from
the recording. The transcript is a verbatim written record of
the court proceeding. Obviously, if the electronic recording is
audible, then the transcript must contain the proceeding,
verbatim. This non-controversial bill addresses the situation
when the electronic recording is, in part, inaudible or not
discernible. If the electronic transcript is not audible, then
the entity making the transcript cannot properly transcribe the
proceeding. This bill requires that any part of the recording
that is not understandable be noted by writing "inaudible" or
"unintelligible" for that portion of the recording that contains
no audible sound or is not discernible. According to the
author, this bill is necessary "to ensure the integrity of the
record and to alert consumers as to any ambiguity in the record
that arises from an inaudible or unintelligible section of an
audio recording." The bill is supported by court reporters
organizations, and there is no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Requires a transcript derived from an electronic
recording of a court proceeding to include a designation of
"inaudible" or "unintelligible" for those portions of the
recording that contain no audible sound or are not discernible.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 2657
Page 2
1)Allows a court, if an official court reporter or an official
reporter pro tempore is unavailable, to use electronic
recording equipment only in a limited civil case, a
misdemeanor or infraction case, or for the internal purpose of
monitoring the performance of a subordinate judicial officer,
hearing officer or temporary judge. (Government Code Section
69957(a)-(b). Unless states otherwise, all further references
are to that code.)
2)Allows a transcript derived from an electronic recording to be
used whenever a transcript of the court proceeding is
required. (Section 69957(a).)
3)Requires each court to obtain advance approval from the
Judicial Council for purchases or leasing of electronic
recording technology. (Section 69957(c).)
4)Requires each superior court to report semiannually to the
Judicial Council, and the Judicial Council to report
semiannually to the Legislature, regarding all purchases and
leases of electronic recording equipment that will be used to
record superior court proceedings. (Section 69958.)
COMMENTS : This non-controversial bill requires that transcripts
derived from electronic recordings of court proceedings must
include a designation of "inaudible" or "unintelligible" for
those portions of the recording that contain no audible sound or
are not discernible. In support of the bill, the author writes:
Currently, when transcripts are prepared from an electronic
recording device, there is no statutory requirement to
include a designation of "inaudible" or "unintelligible"
for those portions of the electronic recording that contain
no audible sound or where the sound is not discernible.
When inaudible noises and/or unintelligible sounds occur
and are not designated within transcripts from electronic
recordings, the transcripts do not reflect the true
proceeding, potentially harming litigants by representing
inaccurate transcripts as true, correct, and complete
copies of proceedings.
In order to ensure the integrity of the record and to alert
AB 2657
Page 3
consumers as to any ambiguity in the record that arises
from an inaudible or unintelligible section of an audio
recording - a designation of "inaudible" or
"unintelligible" should be required in each instance it
occurs in transcripts prepared from audio recordings.
Limited Use of Electronic Recording in Court Proceedings : Use
of electronic recording in place of a court reporter is strictly
limited in California today. Trial courts in California may
only use electronic recording equipment in a limited civil case,
a misdemeanor or infraction case, and then only if a court
reporter is unavailable. California Rules of Court, Rule
2.952(j) allows an electronic recording be the official record
of the proceedings to be used as the record on appeal, if
stipulated to by the parties and approved by the reviewing
court. The record is not required to be transcribed for appeal.
This bill does not extend use of electronic recording. It
simply requires that, when transcribed, inaudible portions of
the electronic record be denoted as such.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the California
Court Reporters Association writes:
A quality record is crucial in maintaining access to
justice and ensuring public trust in the Judicial System.
In order to ensure the integrity of the record and to alert
consumers as to any ambiguity in the record that arises
from an inaudible or unintelligible portion of an
electronic recording, a designation of "inaudible" or
"unintelligible" should be required in each instance where
it occurs in transcripts prepared from electronic
recordings.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Court Reporters Association
AB 2657
Page 4
Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association
San Diego Superior Court Reporters Association
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334