BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 2657 (Calderon)
As Amended April 10, 2012
Hearing Date: June 19, 2012
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Electronic Court Reporting
DESCRIPTION
Existing law, in limited circumstances, as specified, authorizes
the use of an electronic recording and provides that a
transcript derived from an electronic recording may be utilized
whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required. This
bill would specify that transcripts derived from electronic
recordings shall include a designation of "inaudible" or
"unintelligible" for those portions of the recording that
contain no audible sound or are not discernible.
BACKGROUND
California law provides that a superior court may appoint as
many competent phonographic reporters, to be known as official
reporters of such court, and such official reporters pro
tempore, as are deemed necessary for the performance of the
duties and the exercise of the powers conferred by law upon the
court and its members. (Gov. Code Sec. 66941.) A person cannot
be appointed to the position of official reporter of any court
unless the person has first obtained a license to practice as a
certified shorthand reporter from the Court Reporters Board of
California. (Gov. Code Sec. 66942.) At times, however, neither
an official court reporter, nor an official reporter pro tempore
may be available, and in specified circumstances, an electronic
recording may be used in their place. In those instances,
existing law provides that a transcript derived from an
electronic recording may be utilized whenever a transcript of
court proceedings is required.
(more)
AB 2657 (Calderon)
Page 2 of ?
This bill would provide that where portions of the recording
contain no audible sound or are not discernable, the electronic
recording transcript shall include a designation of "inaudible"
or "unintelligible."
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , in relevant part, provides that if an official
reporter or an official reporter pro tempore is unavailable to
report an action or proceeding in a court, subject to the
availability of approved equipment and equipment monitors, the
court may order that the action or proceeding be electronically
recorded, as specified, in a limited civil case, or a
misdemeanor or infraction case. Existing law also provides that
a transcript derived from an electronic recording may be
utilized whenever a transcript of court proceedings is required.
(Gov. Code Sec. 69957(a).)
Existing law provides that a court may use electronic recording
equipment for the internal personnel purpose of monitoring the
performance of subordinate judicial officers, as defined,
hearing officers, and temporary judges while proceedings are
conducted in the courtroom, if notice is as specified. Existing
law prohibits an electronic recording made for the purpose of
monitoring that performance from being used for any other
purpose and being made publicly available. Existing law further
requires that any such recording be destroyed two years after
the date of the proceeding unless a personnel matter is pending
relating to performance of the subordinate judicial officer,
hearing officer, or temporary judge. (Gov. Code Sec. 69957(b).)
This bill would amend Section 69957(a) above to specify that
transcripts derived from electronic recordings shall include a
designation of "inaudible" or "unintelligible" for those
portions of the recording that contain no audible sound or are
not discernible.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 2657 (Calderon)
Page 3 of ?
Existing law allows a court, if an official court reporter or
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. �Gov. Code
Section 69957.] Existing law �also] allows a transcript
derived from an electronic recording to be used whenever a
transcript of the court proceedings is required. (Section
69957(a).)
Currently, �however,] there is no requirement that transcripts
form electronic court recordings include a designation of
"inaudible" or "unintelligible" when the electronic recording
is not discernible. Because of this, transcripts do not
always reflect an accurate copy of the proceedings. A quality
recording helps ensure access to justice and trust in the
judicial system. . . .
AB 2657 requires that 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.
In support of the bill, the California Court Reporters
Association writes, "�w]hen inaudible noises and/or
unintelligible sounds occur and are not designated within
transcripts from electronic records, the transcripts do not
reflect the true proceedings, potentially harming litigants by
representing incomplete transcripts as true, correct, and
accurate. A quality record is crucial in maintaining access to
justice and ensuring public trust in the �j]udicial �s]ystem.
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 form electronic records."
2. Inaccurate transcripts are unreliable and can have severe
impacts on the administration of justice
The bill does not expand upon the authorized use of electronic
recording, nor does it require transcription be derived from an
electronic recording. This bill merely provides that where
AB 2657 (Calderon)
Page 4 of ?
existing law already allows a transcript to be derived from an
electronic recording if a transcript is otherwise required, the
transcript must include a designation of "inaudible" or
"unintelligible" for any portions of the recording that contain
no audible sound or are not discernible.
Electronic recordings may only be used in limited circumstances,
as specified, when an official court reporter or an official
reporter pro tempore is otherwise not available for the
proceeding. Thus, existing law arguably implicitly recognizes
that reporters are the preferable option for producing accurate
records, all things being equal. When a court reporter is
present, proceedings may feasibly be stopped to get parties to
stop talking over one another, or repeat a word or words that
were inaudible or unintelligible. This, obviously, is not the
case with electronic recording. The result at the very least
would be an inaccurate transcript. It could also however result
in an unreliable record upon which appeals may be made or other
proceedings are conducted.
The San Diego Superior Court Reporters Association, in support,
states that a correct and accurate record of proceedings is a
"vital component to the proper and efficient administration of
justice in our state . . . . In producing transcripts where the
proceedings were electronically recorded, the record should
reflect those areas where audio cannot be heard or properly
understood. Not doing so can lead to litigants having
difficulty in the judicial process when they are relying on
transcripts as complete and accurate, when they are not
necessarily so."
The California Public Defenders Association's letter in support
elaborates on the impact when a person's liberty interests are
at stake. "A person's livelihood may end and opportunities be
foreclosed when a criminal conviction, including a misdemeanor,
attaches to the person's record. For example, a person who
depends on driving as a part of his or her employment duties may
lose current and future employment opportunities with a DUI
conviction or a conviction for a suspended license. Not only
does the court rely on the information, but entities including
the Department of Motor Vehicles at times rely on the available
court transcripts in deciding license revocation or suspension
issues. Similarly, an immigration court might request the
transcripts in determining whether the particular misdemeanor at
issue will result in removal proceedings being commenced against
the person."
AB 2657 (Calderon)
Page 5 of ?
Thus, given the importance of these records, and given the
potential consequences of not doing so, it does not appear
inappropriate to specifically require the transcript designate
portions of the recording are inaudible or not discernible.
Support : California Court Reporters Association; California
Public Defenders Association; Court Reporters Board of
California; Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association; San
Diego Superior Court Reporters Association
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : None Known
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************