CTC Session Articles
Education Session Article
This article was written in support of a presentation given at CTC4 in 1994.
Using Video Recording as a Componenet in Managing Your Court
By Richard Ryan Lamb
Trial judges must ensure that court proceedings are recorded and transcribed if necessary1. The record must be accurate and timely. Judges must make decisions as to what method or combination of methods should be employed to record proceedings and prepare a record that best meets the needs of the court and the judge. Judges may contemplate this matter in their capacity as presiding or administrative judges for multi-judge courts or as the presiding judge in their courtroom. Here are some of the reasons I chose a video recording system.
I served as chief judge in Kalamazoo, a five-judge circuit, from January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1991. I was confronted with a problem of chronically late transcripts and an inability to fill all six authorized official court reporter positions. The county and court reporters were being sued for failure to produce timely transcripts. A prisoner was released from prison on bail because he had not been provided a transcript for his appeal. To explore alternative court recording systems, I, along with county commissioners and a person from the Supreme Court Administrative Office, visited Kentucky to observe a video system in operation. After obtaining approval from the Michigan Supreme Court to conduct a pilot program, I became the first judge in Michigan to use video recording. A court reporter was not replaced by installing the video system.
Video recording as a method of recording proceedings in trial courts offers a choice to judges. Video recording can be used independently or in conjunction with other recording methods and technology. The decision to use video recording raises issues that must be addressed before reaching a decision. How can a judge reach an informed decision as to which method of court recording best meets the court's and the judge's needs? Based upon my experience with video recording over the past eight years, I offer the following thoughts for your consideration.
The System
Five cameras mounted in the court are used in conjunction with four recording VCRs and one playback VCR. Two VCRs record the official court record. The remaining two are available for attorneys or parties. Microphones are placed throughout the courtroom in strategic locations. A camera and microphone are placed in chambers. The chambers conference can be displayed in the court on a monitor for jury viewing. Monitors are placed on the judge's bench, in chambers, and in the court's office. Monitors may be placed at other strategic locations. The system has a playback feature, mute switch for bench conferences, and a camera lock to focus on a particular speaker. The cameras do not move, but are focused on a speaker near a microphone by way of an automatic switching function.
This description may sound like an extremely complicated process and may cause judges to wonder: Can I operate this equipment?
Can you dial a telephone? Can you push the up/down button on an elevator? If your answer is yes -- then you can operate a video system.
Myths and Criticism
I have heard the following: If two people talk at once, the cameras will jump from person to person or the record will be lost. My eight years' experience with this system has proven to me that these are indeed myths. A camera locks on the first speaker. There are enough tracks on the tapes so speakers can be isolated and identified even if speaking simultaneously. Judges ordinarily will not allow two people to speak at once in the courtroom in the presence of a court reporter. Why should the rule be different with video recording? Another common misperception is that appellate courts will review video records and invade the trial judge's discretionary rulings in areas such as credibility. In Michigan, neither the court of appeals nor the supreme court has done this in any case reviewed during my eight years' experience with this system. The appellate courts review transcripts rather than viewing the videotape itself as the record.
A criticism I hear often is that videotapes, as the only official record, take too long to review. I agree! Michigan has resolved this drawback by requiring production of transcripts and using transcripts for appellate review. If an appellate court wants to review the tape in addition to the transcript, that is the court's choice. My experience has been that most courts utilize transcripts. Michigan differs from Kentucky in this regard and I believe the proponents of the use of transcripts have a valid point.
You may ask, if a transcript is going to be prepared, then why have a video recording system? The answer is that a video system eliminates the need of having a person in court during the time a record is being made. I have heard estimates for producing a transcript that range from three hours preparation time to one hour in court, down to one hour of preparation time for every hour in court. No matter which formula you accept, it is apparent that the person taking down notes cannot at the same time be preparing the transcript. With a video system you may prepare a transcript from a tape at the end of each day.
What are some of the benefits of a video system?
Accuracy
Video recording provides you with an actual record of what was stated by each speaker. The audio portion of the recording is enhanced by viewing the speaker. Traditional court reporting methods provide you with notes of what court reporters heard said in the courtroom or what the court reporters thought they heard said in the courtroom.
Immediacy
Attorneys who appear in court and want to have orders, judgments of divorce, or other documents prepared can bring their own videotape to the hearing. At the completion of the hearing the attorney can take the videotape back to his or her office and have the document prepared from the videotape. During a trial, videotapes can be made available to jurors for replay of testimony as necessary or requested.
Cost Savings
With a video system, the transcriptionist who is going to prepare the record is not required to be in court during the proceedings. The need for a court employee and the salary and fringe benefits for that employee are eliminated. The cost of the equipment and maintenance must be included in evaluating costs vis-à-vis an employee; however, equipment cost is a one-time expenditure, which can be amortized over a period of years.
Cost Savings
| Video Recording | Official Reporter |
|---|---|
| $55,000 purchase | |
| $2,750 Annual Maintenance (5% of cost) | $45,639 Salary and Benefits |
| $4,620 Transcriptionist Overhead | $4,400 Substitute Reporter |
| $375 VCR Replacement (amortization - 4 years) | $1,850 Office Supplies and Equipment |
| $572 Records-Staff (52 hours @$11/hour) | $800 Office Space |
| $6,875 Equipment (amortization - 8 years) | $500 Phone |
| $1,800 Videotapes (600 x $3) | $3,060 Supervision (180 hours @ $17/hour) |
| $442 Supervision (26 hours @ $17/hour) | |
| $17,434 Total Annual Cost | $56,249 Total Annual Cost |
Cost Savings
$56,249 Official Reporter
$17,434 Video Recorder
$38,815 Annual Savings
Docket Management
Since a transcriptionist or reporter is not required to be in court during the time the proceedings are being recorded on video, a judge has much more freedom to schedule proceedings. This flexibility of scheduling provides benefits to other judges, litigants, witnesses, jurors, and court personnel. Transcripts that have to be prepared for appellate purposes can be prepared while the trial is still proceeding. At the completion of each day of trial, the tape can be sent to a transcriptionist and a court can get a head start on preparing transcripts.
Protection for Victims and Witnesses
By using the recording system located in chambers, under appropriate circumstances as authorized by law, witnesses may testify out of the presence of defendants in criminal cases. The jury and the defendant are able to see the witness testifying via a large monitor in the courtroom. The defendant is able to communicate with the attorney before, during, and after the examination. This procedure has met confrontation challenges in the courts2 and has been used successfully in criminal sexual conduct cases.
Court Security
Monitors can be placed at strategic locations so that court staff and law enforcement officers can observe what is taking place in the courtroom. This factor enhances security by allowing additional eyes and ears in the courtroom without the necessity of the physical presence of court staff. In addition to enhancing security, this allows the court staff to perform other functions and attend to the business of the court.
Enhancing Relationships with Funding Units
Because substantial cost savings can be realized by using a video system, funding units are very appreciative when courts are willing to utilize video recording. More and more demands are being placed upon the financial resources of funding units by sources outside the control of the funding unit. When courts cooperate with efforts to reduce expenses, intergovernmental relationships are enhanced.
Interfacing Technology
I have used the video system coupled with speaker telephones to accommodate witnesses who are out-of-state. A record of the testimony is made by placing the speaker phone near one of the microphones recording the proceedings. I have used this same method to take testimony from divorce litigants who are residing out-of-state and to take testimony from incarcerated prisoners. We also use hearing aids that are interfaced with our microphone system in the courtroom. Jurors, litigants, attorneys, and court observers with hearing difficulties can use these simple devices to hear and participate in proceedings in which they would otherwise be unable to participate.
Future Applications
The video system is built so that it can accommodate video conferencing and video arraignments. Conferences in chambers and arraignments for prisoners located in jails that are distant from the courthouse can be conducted by use of the video system. The system can be interfaced with computer systems.
These applications of current video system technology and computer technology can be expanded and enhanced concomitant with technological advances, which are certain to occur.
Conclusion
Courts cannot afford to be left behind in our world of rapid technological advances. Video recording opens new opportunities for effective management, reliable record keeping, efficient transcript production, cost savings, and a bridge to our rapidly changing technological milieu.
Endnotes
1 Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1980).
2 Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
People v. James, 182 Mich. App. 295, 451 N.W.2d 611 (1990), leave to appeal denied,436 Mich. 871 (1990).
In re Deeren, 158 Mich. App. 539, 405 N.W.2d 189 (1987).
In re Brock, 442 Mich. 101, 499 N.W.2d 752 (1993).
Biographical Information
This biographical information may date from as far back as 1994. Please keep in mind that it may no longer be accurate.
Richard Ryan Lamb
Judge Richard Ryan Lamb has been a circuit court judge in the 9th Judicial Circuit, Kalamazoo County, Michigan, for 12 years. During his tenure as chief judge (1985-1991), he introduced video recording to the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court. He has used video recording in his court since 1987, and holds the distinction of being the first judge in Michigan to use video recording. Judge Lamb has served as President of the Kalamazoo County Young Lawyers Association, Kalamazoo County Trial Lawyers Association, Kalamazoo County Bar Association, and he recently completed a term as President of the Michigan Judges Association.
Judge Lamb participates in numerous professional and civic organizations, and has extensive experience in college-level teaching, court procedures, criminal investigations, criminal law, and court administration. He received his law degree from the Detroit College of Law in 1969, and practiced law until his appointment to the bench.