What $22,000 can buy - court reporters beware!!

What $22,000 can buy - court reporters beware!!

Seems like a little grant from a legislative body can remove court reporters from doing what they do better than any piece of hardware, protecting the record and producing the best document possible for use in higher courts if need be. Get bean counters and a good salesman together and that's all that's needed to sell an inferior system to an unknowing court administrator!!

~ the Beagle

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Village Court Awarded Grant for Renovations, Improvements

Senator Kemp Hannon and Assemblyman Jim Conte recently announced he has been advised by the State's Chief Administrative Judge, Ann Pfau, that the Village of Farmingdale has been awarded a $22,153.48 grant under the State's Justice Court Assistance Program to undertake renovations and to purchase equipment to improve their operations and make their facilities more secure.

Senator Hannon said, "It will help the Farmingdale Village Court serve the people even better. I look forward to the continued operation of the Justice Court Assistance Program and to working with the State court system to ensure our local courts remain an integral component of our justice system."

"It is important for these courts to have the resources they need to provide the best security and the most efficient judicial process for the residents of Farmingdale and Long Island," added Conte.

Village Administrator Dave Smollett said the grant will provide upgraded computers and printers to enhance automation in their justice court system."

"It also provides for an enhanced security system which will allow us to purchase and install security and monitoring equipment," Smollett added. "We also received a digital recorder/court reporting system which records court sessions and eliminates having to hire a court stenographer for every court session."

Despite their critical function, these courts often have few resources - reflecting the budgetary limitations of the towns and villages that support them. Recognizing this, the State Legislature in 1999 established the Justice Court Assistance Program to provide supplementary state assistance in the form of grants to the town and village justice courts. These grants, awarded by the Chief Administrative Judge of the State Court System, make it possible for justice courts to acquire essential equipment, enhance security, and maintain a dignified and appropriate appearance.

"These grants go a long way toward providing needed funding for local courts, thus, saving our communities valuable tax dollars," continued Conte. "I am pleased that I could do my part in helping to promote these important grants."

Trial is all Wet!

I guess they should employ postmen...neither rain nor sleet shall keep the postman from his rounds but a little bit of water can certainly cause havoc in a courthouse! A good court reporter would be there with his equipment ready to take the testimony and get the litigation on the right track....

~ The Beagle

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Flooding postpones case
March 12 2008
The civil trial of four men accused of stripping a woman of her trousers in public last year has been postponed to April because of flood damage to Umlazi's Equality Court."...Due to severe floods in Durban last night, some recording equipment (is) defective, including the ones used in this trial," magistrate Louis Radyn said on Wednesday.Several courtrooms were flooded after a downpour in Durban on Tuesday night. Mopping up was still underway at 11am.Thulani and Sibusiso Cele, Sitha Nzuza and Wiseman Mzotho are on trial on charges of infringement of human rights and dignity.

Court Computer Lets Crooks Go Free!!

COURTS AND COMPUTERS ~

If it can happen, it will happen!

~ The Beagle

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

March 14, 2008
Court blunders let over 500 off hook
Leeds Magistrates' Court

By Jonathan Reed Political Editor

A QUARTER of a century of failings at Yorkshire's biggest criminal court allowed hundreds of defendants to evade justice while details of up to 1,200 more have not been put on the police national computer amid a "systematic covering up of errors."

Justice Secretary Jack Straw condemned the "lamentable" failings after an inquiry revealed up to 555 defendants were either never tried or never served their sentence for offences including indecent assault, wounding and burglary.Warrants in their cases were simply withdrawn by legal advisers – or clerks – at Leeds Magistrates Court in an administrative swoop to clear backlogs.

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration also said it was "unacceptable" that failures to log court results in hundreds of cases between 1980 and 2004 – the vast majority of which were between 2001 and 2004 – mean there are no accurate results of what happened to 2,206 defendants.

As a result, up to 1,200 convicted criminals have avoided being put on the national police database, leaving their crimes to go unnoticed when background checks are carried out or other police forces are making inquiries.

The report also reveals court legal advisers made up records for 12 defendants by guessing the outcome of their case – because the true judgment was missing – and one offender may have been sentenced twice for the same offence.Last night there was fury from MPs as Mr Straw, who ordered the inquiry in November, revealed disciplinary action is under way.

Two people have already been disciplined for gross misconduct.Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, said: "This statement is an extraordinary description of institutional chaos and systematic abuse at Leeds Magistrates Court."The fact that we are also talking about legal advisers actually making up results by guesswork must surely mean that we are talking about a criminal offence."There are still a number of unanswered questions that must be clarified."

Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert said: "There was a catalogue of negligence and poor record keeping among court staff that has undermined the criminal justice system in West Yorkshire and let down victims of crime."The nature of the failings did raise the question of whether they might be occurring in other courts, he said.

The report is one of two inquiries ordered by Mr Straw after concerns were raised about the recording of cases by the court and the withdrawal of warrants.

Hundreds of rulings were either not recorded or put down wrongly, four artificial registers were created in 2002 to cover up the failures and in 2004 legal advisers made up the results of 27 cases involving 12 defendants.

The chaos means details of up to 1,200 offenders were not logged on the police national computer.A protocol used between 1999 and 2004 meant batches of warrants were withdrawn in bulk to tackle backlogs, meaning 555 defendants could have evaded justice.

Last night the Ministry of Justice said procedures were in place to trace offenders.Leeds solicitor Grahame Stowe said a "national obsession" with statistics led to the problems and called on the Government to stop interfering with the justice system.

New Career Opportunities in Court Reporting and Spinoff Occupations ~

Court Reporting and much much more...new occupations involving real time reporting are demanding higher levels of students than ever before. If you are interested in learning more about how to enter this new and exciting job market, read this article and check out www.ncraonline.com and your local community college for further information.

What are you waiting for?

~ The Beagle

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Disabilities Act and Telecom Legislation Drive Demand for More Court Reporters, NCRA Says

WASHINGTON (Map) - Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and various pieces of telecommunications legislation are driving the need for more closed captioning and realtime translation for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, not enough court reporters are graduating to keep up with the demand, the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) said today.
On the eve of the 17th anniversary of the ADA being signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, the Census Bureau reports that more than 51 million Americans have some level of disability. The National Association for the Deaf estimates that hearing loss affects some 28 million Americans. For Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing, court reporters provide access to important information -- a key aim of the ADA -- through closed-captioning and realtime translation.

Likewise, telecom legislation calls for various types of information technologies such as hi-def television to be made more accessible to people with disabilities, a need which will only grow as new technologies like Internet phones and iPods become more widely used by the population.
But a recently released NCRA report documents a steadily declining, downward trend in the number of court reporters graduating this year from NCRA-certified programs, with only about 350 graduates in 2007, when three times that number are needed nationwide.
"While both the demand for court reporters and the need for training in this profession's technological advances are on the rise, the ranks of court reporters and students of this profession continue to grow thin. This trend needs to be reversed quickly," said NCRA executive
director and CEO Mark Golden.

To help meet the need for court reporters, NCRA is reaching out to interest potential students at http://www.bestfuture.com/. In addition, NCRA is supporting bills (S 675 and HR 1687) before Congress that call for competitive grants to train captioners and reporters who specialize in realtime and Communication Access Realtime Translation.

The National Court Reporters Association, a 24,000-member nonprofit organization, represents the judicial reporting and captioning professions. Members include official court reporters, deposition reporters, broadcast captioners, providers of realtime communication access services for deaf and hard-of-hearing people and others who capture and convert the spoken word into information bases and readable formats. For information on court reporter graduation rates, visit http://www.ncraonline.org/.

Court Reporter Saves Prosecutor...

Brave Court Reporter Saves the Day...court reporters seem to add something to a courtroom those recording machines simply cannot do...they help protect the lives of innocent people!

Do not let the bean counters remove this bastion of civility in our courtrooms!!

Write a letter to your superior court justice and let them know that the American Justice System needs people not machines!!

~ The Beagle

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Courtroom chaos as convict with razor attacks prosecutor
BY JOHN MARZULLI DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, March 12th 2008
Ward for News

Attorney Harry Batchelder (above) shows cut suffered when he and court reporter Ronald Tolkin (below) had to stop his client from attacking prosecutor Carolyn Pokorny.
Ward for News

A razor-wielding drug thug grabbed U.S. prosecutor Carolyn Pokorny in a headlock yesterday and slammed her to the floor at his sentencing in Brooklyn federal court.
Victor Wright had Pokorny by the hair and seemed ready to wield the makeshift weapon when his lawyer and a court reporter leapt in to save her.

"I think he was going to slash her throat," defense lawyer Harry Batchelder, 72, told the Daily News. "He fully intended to maim her."

"His face was full of rage," agreed Ronald Tolkin, the 60-year-old court reporter.
Wright, 37, was a key lieutenant of drug kingpin Kenneth (Supreme) McGriff who founded the Supreme Team in the 1980s, a drug gang that wreaked havoc in southeast Queens.
McGriff is serving a life sentence for murder at Florence ADX Penitentiary in Colorado, the nation's most secure federal prison. Wright's sentencing was adjourned after the shocking courtroom attack.

It didn't appear that escape was the intention of the powerfully built inmate - just revenge.
"He thinks she framed him," said Batchelder.

The havoc in Judge Frederic Block's courtroom started as Wright was led in through a side door shortly after 3 p.m.

He made a beeline straight for Pokorny, chief of the narcotics section for the Brooklyn U.S. attorney's office, and took her down.

"He had her by the hair, she was screaming," said courtroom clerk Michael Innelli. "She was at the bottom of a pile."

Wright dropped the makeshift weapon on the carpet during the struggle with Batchelder and Tolkin.

Eugene Corcoran, chief U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of New York, said an internal investigation is underway to determine how the weapon was smuggled into the courthouse.

Court Reporting System - Is This Another Tale of Two Cities?

Two points of view on the FTR recording system being used in Wellington and Aukland. Whose brush carries the most paint?

~ the Beagle

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Press Release: New Zealand Government Digital transcription technology introducedThursday, 6 March 2008
Hon Rick BarkerMinister for Courts
6 March 2008

Digital transcription technology introduced to the High Court

Digital audio technology for recording and transcribing evidence has been introduced by the High Court in Wellington and Auckland. It is estimated that this technology will reduce court hearing time by between 20-30%, which will assist case throughput.

"For the Record or FTR, provides a high quality recording of the evidence which is then relayed to transcription staff located outside of the courtroom to be typed up as the trial proceeds. This is another demonstration of the Labour-led government's drive to modernise the court system to improve access to justice for all New Zealanders," Court's Minister, Rick Barker said. "The evidence given at a recent high profile murder trial at Wellington High Court was transcribed using the new technology and this was a key factor in reducing the length of the trial from an expected eight weeks to four weeks. The trial time was cut in half and I am certain that this was appreciated by all involved.

"This new technology makes the experience of giving evidence easier for witnesses and a better experience for everyone in the courtroom. It also means trials can proceed more quickly. FTR allows witnesses to speak at a normal, uninterrupted speed and the transcript is printed in the courtroom within 30 minutes of the evidence being given.

“New technology is enabling courts to work more efficiently for the benefit of all court users”, Mr Barker said.

Although digital evidence and recording technology has been used in the District Court for some years, until now, its use in the High Court has been limited to two courtrooms in Auckland. 17 High Court courtrooms and 20 additional District Court courtrooms will be progressively equipped with FTR over the next two years, as well as upgrading the FTR systems already being used in the District Court.

To further improve efficiency, transcription services are moving to being nationally managed. Mr Barker opened Transcription Service Centres in Wellington and Auckland late last year. From June, these Service Centres will begin being linked to local court based transcription staff across the country. Access to a larger, national team of transcription staff means courts will be better resourced to process increasing workloads.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Courier-MailBrisbane, AustraliaMark Oberhardt
February 27, 2008

THE Chief Justice, Paul de Jersey, has asked for a ``priority effort`` in rectifying complaints about the Supreme and District Court building's multi million dollar digital recording system.Judges and lawyers are upset about delays in getting transcripts from the system which records court proceedings in criminal and civil trials, sentence hearings, applications and ceremonies such as valedictories.

There have also been delays in court proceedings because the system has failed. Matters came to a head today when it was revealed someone had ``forgotten`` to record the recent valedictory for retiring Judge Garry Forno QC. Transcripts of such events play a role in recording the history of the courts and its officers.

Justice de Jersey said he was aware there had been no recording of Judge Forno's valedictory because of an oversight and he was also aware there were some complaints about the system. He said he had spoken to those responsible for the digital system and asked them to rectify the problems as `` a priority``.

Justice de Jersey said he was certain everything possible was being done to rectify the problems. He added that digital recording was the future of the courts and important so the system moved forward with the times. Digital recording is set to eventually replace all short hand takers who for more than a century have recorded court proceedings. However, the system, installed at a cost of several millions dollars, has had its share of teething problems.

There have been long delays in getting transcripts of trials and sentencing proceedings. Transcripts play a vital role in the day to day running of the court system. Judges and lawyers use the transcripts extensively in trials while sentence remarks are vital in preparing appeals.

Both the Children's Court President, Judge Julie Dick, and the Court of Appeal's President, Margaret McMurdo, made mention of problems in their annual reports to parliament. Several other judges have also made complaints about the system in open court while many lawyers are also critical.

Vulgar Deposition Language - Not Condoned by the Federal Judge

When a deposition goes south, sanctions will most certainly head north!!

- the Beagle

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lawyer and Client Sanctioned Over Client's Conduct, Use of 'F Word' During Deposition

Shannon P. Duffy - The Legal Intelligencer 03-05-2008

A federal judge has levied sanctions of more than $29,000 on a lawyer and his client after finding that a deposition was a "spectacular failure" because of the client's constant use of vulgar language and insults and dodging or refusing to answer questions, and his lawyer's failure to rein him in.

In his 44-page opinion in GMAC Bank v. HTFC Corp., U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno found that Aaron Wider, the CEO of HTFC, engaged in "hostile, uncivil, and vulgar conduct, which persisted throughout the nearly 12 hours of deposition testimony."

Robreno noted that Wider used the "F word" or variations of it 73 times during the deposition and that the video shows that his lawyer, Joseph R. Ziccardi of Chicago, at one point "snickered" at his client's conduct.

Ziccardi was also to blame, Robreno found, because he failed to stop his client's tirades and persuade him to answer questions.

"The nature of Wider's misconduct was so severe and pervasive, and his violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so frequent and blatant, that any reasonable attorney representing Wider would have intervened in an effort to curb Wider's misconduct," Robreno wrote.

"Ziccardi's failure to address, then and there, Wider's misconduct could have no other effect but to empower Wider to persist in his behavior. Under these circumstances, the court equates Ziccardi's silence with endorsement and ratification of Wider's misconduct," Robreno wrote.

As a result, Robreno concluded that both Wider and Ziccardi should be sanctioned under Rule 30 and Rule 37, and that Wider must appear for a new deposition which will be taken under the supervision of a federal magistrate judge.

Ziccardi declined to be interviewed, saying he did not want to make any public comments because the matter "is still pending."

In a footnote, Robreno seemed to apologize to readers for the coarse language he included in the opinion, but said "while the use of profanity in the opinion is distasteful, it is necessary in order to capture the nature of the offensive conduct displayed by the deponent."

The opinion includes lengthy quotes from Wider's deposition which Robreno said were "only a few examples" of Wider's misconduct.

"Wider's assault on the deposition proceedings involved three types of inappropriate behavior: 1) engaging in hostile, uncivil, and vulgar conduct; 2) impeding, delaying, and frustrating fair examination; and 3) failing to answer and providing intentionally evasive answers to deposition questions," Robreno wrote.

Throughout the deposition, Robreno said, Wider "sought to intimidate opposing counsel by maintaining a persistently hostile demeanor, employing uncivil insults, and using profuse vulgarity."

In one passage, GMAC's lawyer, Robert B. Bodzin of Kleinbard Bell & Brecker in Philadelphia, asked Wider to open a file so that Bodzin could ask questions about certain documents.

According to the transcript, as quoted in Robreno's opinion, Wider erupted, saying: "'I'm taking a break. F--- him. You open up the document. You want me to look at something, you get the document out. Earn your f------ money, a------. Isn't the law wonderful?'"

In another passage, Bodzin said: "We're going to adjourn this deposition if this happens again because you are offending every single person."

According to Robreno's opinion, Wider responded: "'Don't speak for anybody in here except yourself f--- face.'"

When Bodzin said he was speaking for himself and the court reporter, Wider said: "'If she had a problem with me she would say something. She knows it's [not] directed toward her. It's directed to you because you're a piece of s--- and a piece of garbage and I'm the only person in your life that is f------ up your world and I enjoy it.'"

Robreno said the transcript showed that Wider "used the word 'f---' and variants thereof no less than 73 times."

By contrast, Robreno noted, the word "contract" was used only 14 times.
"Such profuse vulgarity had no constructive purpose," Robreno wrote. "The court is left with the impression that such abusive language was chosen solely to intimidate and demean opposing counsel."

Wider's vulgarity wasn't the only problem, Robreno said.

"Equally serious is Wider's willful exploitation of the discovery process. Wider impeded the deposition by improperly interposing his own objections, delayed the proceedings by providing unnecessarily protracted answers and repeatedly interrupting counsel for GMAC's questioning, and proudly expressed his intent to frustrate his examination," Robreno wrote.

Wider abruptly stormed out of the deposition on several occasions, Robreno said, and the video shows that Wider "would follow his inappropriate, obstructive, or dilatory remarks with a gleeful smirk directed at his counsel, at the transcriptionist, and even directly at the camera."

At one point, Robreno said, Wider patted himself on the back "after a particularly odious instance of obstruction," in order to flaunt his abuse of the deposition process.

Robreno also found that Wider "often refused to answer questions, and, when he did answer questions, provided intentionally uncooperative and long-winded answers to straightforward questions."

In court papers, Ziccardi argued that Wider's refusal to respond to questions during his deposition was justified because many of GMAC's questions were irrelevant.

Robreno disagreed, saying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a deponent to answer all questions -- even questions for which there is an objection -- unless the witness's lawyer explicitly instructs him not to answer or moves to suspend the deposition.

Ziccardi also argued that Wider's conduct was the result of provocative and accusatory questions from Bodzin.

Robreno flatly rejected that, saying: "This argument is simply astonishing. As evidenced in the video ... counsel for GMAC comported himself with courtesy, respect, and professionalism; this was no easy feat, considering Wider's unrelenting insults, vulgarity, and mockery, most of which were a direct assault on counsel for GMAC."

Bodzin's questions were "far from provocative," Robreno found, but instead were "relevant questions of the type seen in the ordinary course of a deposition in a commercial case."
Robreno found that Bodzin "exercised great restraint in the face of Wider's persistent attempts to incite him to anger" and "could not have been less provocative."

Ziccardi also argued that Wider suffers from a mental condition that explains his conduct and should be considered a "mitigating factor" in imposing any sanctions.

But Robreno refused to consider the argument, noting that Wider's doctor was present at a recent hearing, but was never called to the stand.

Ziccardi filed medical records under seal, Robreno noted, but failed to give copies of the records to opposing counsel even after he was ordered to do so by the court.

In a footnote, Robreno said that in the hearing, Ziccardi "purported to offer an apology to the court" for his client's conduct, but that "Wider himself remained silent throughout the proceedings."

In the final section of the opinion, Robreno explained why Ziccardi, too, must be sanctioned for Wider's misconduct.

"Throughout the deposition, notwithstanding the severe and repeated nature of Wider's misconduct, Ziccardi persistently failed to intercede and correct Wider's violations of the Federal Rules," Robreno wrote.

"Instead, Ziccardi sat idly by as a mere spectator to Wider's abusive, obstructive, and evasive behavior; and when he did speak, he either incorrectly directed the witness not to answer, dared opposing counsel to file a motion to compel, or even joined in Wider's offensive conduct," Robreno wrote.

In a footnote, Robreno said the video showed Ziccardi "chuckling at Wider's abusive behavior" and Bodzin's comment that "'your snickering counsel is not appropriate either, because all you're doing is encouraging the behavior of your client.'"

In court papers, Ziccardi argued that he believed he had tried to curb his client's behavior, but that most of his efforts to do so occurred off the record.

Robreno was unimpressed, saying "even if this assertion is to be believed, Wider's continuing misconduct indicates that whatever efforts Ziccardi made were woefully ineffectual. In fact, Ziccardi's meek attempts to intercede and his otherwise silent toleration of Wider's conduct only emboldened Wider to further flout the procedural rules."

Although a lawyer may at times be "blindsided" by a client's misconduct, Robreno found that such a lawyer "cannot, however, simply sit back, allow the deposition to proceed, and then blame the client when the deposition process breaks down."