This is when we need to make legislation to override this nonsense. The court system should strive to be as transparent as possible. The audio recordings should be readily and freely available for public inspection, no court order needed.
The ruling sounds unconstitutional. If I'm not incorrect, you have a rigor to a public trial, so any and All información pertaining to a case Should pe public.
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
@@ptrshabyers1797 is there are reason for this regutiated drivel that is also completely at odds with the point when apparently, no the audio tape IS NOT public record
@@ptrshabyers1797 That's interesting. The court reporter is acting in a limited way as a notary to preserve the record because in most states notaries can authenticate records that they themselves create, but not records where there is a custodian of records (like a birth certificate). My guess is that if there is some sort of custodian of records for audio recordings that they could also do this. This brings up a ton of questions. How long must the court retain audio recordings of court proceedings or if they retain them at al Of course if you had a True Copy of the Audio certified by the court reporter of record then a question can arise if the audio has been tampered with. We live in an age of deep fakes when anything can be altered. It seems like the court doesn't want to open a can of worms.
@@ptrshabyers1797 Again, that is only for FEDERAL COURTS. 98% of all trials, hearings, etc. are held in State courts. Second, as the court clerk, anything released by the Court Clerk has his seal attached authenticating it as an official record. They do not need to "certify" any record containing their seal.
I had a case (I was Pro se) where I was appealing a guardianship case where the judge said some things antagonistically in a previous case. One of the points in my appeal was that the judge should have recused himself from this case because of his behavior in the previous case. When I sent the transcript to the appellate division (along with the brief) I asked the appellate court to not only read the transcript but also listen to the audio because the judge's tone of voice made it very clear that he had a prejudice against me. Apparently, the 3 judge panel did because I won the appeal unanimously. In the opinion, it was said that it was not so much what the judge said, but it was in the way he said it that showed bias against the appellant (me).
Imagine the case of the guy in Utah who's Lawyers got him thrown in Jail for being late, 15 mins before court started. Without the audio, it's just would not have been the same. Hearing his lawyers conspiring to have a warrant issued was way more shocking than reading about it. The court reporter would not have recorded what the Public Defenders had been talking about before the court came to order. But the Court AV System was recording and it seem that the recording should be a Public Record because the public paid for the system and the public Defenders are paid by the public. Good thing Utahs not in the Sixth Circuit.
Had a case in a small county court in WV and the Judge said this wasn't the State Capital, where I live, and they can do whatever they want in their courts. And then looked at reporter and said "you know what to do". That statement or the comment to the reporter did not make it into the transcript. As well as many comments made by judge and the opposing council. Ruling went against us but we won in the end at a higher court where the rule of law applies. When travelling into that county I always tell people in my car to grab hold of something because the rules of law, God or Nature do not apply in this county.
I agree that this is about transparency. Human beings make mistakes, and an inaccurate record can completely change what happens during an appeal. Heck, technically we could have a corrupt court reporter along with this.
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
@@ptrshabyers1797 I didn't pass that law. And no one consulted me or anyone else. Folks, the state can't just make up laws. If someone records you, you have the inviolable right to the recording. Someone broke the law. Someone else is trying to protect that person. No law makes THAT legal.
This is another example of a Court that simply doesn't grasp the importance that accurate information must be available to litigants without the possible corruption of human error. It becomes mind boggling to know that there are Judges sitting on these Courts and they can't see the necessity of handing down decisions that ensure justice is served. How can we trust such a system?
Roger think of the PROCESS THE DECROUM!!! THe FINALITY of the justice system is so important and if you read the PLAIN TEXT of the CONSTITUTION youll see where i scratched in the outrage im saying right now Also, Justice Thomas said that about finality: no fuck you guy trying to appeal death penalty, even if the prosecutor actually HId evidenbce that proves you couldnt have done it, you have no standing because it would be offensive to our beautiful and just system, the finality needs to be given a handy.
@@CT_Taylor A broken, corrupt system, that has so many supporters doesn't need any real Constitutional Text to operate. Common Sense Law isn't even acknowledged as practical. We can't even agree anymore on what constitutes decency, fair, or excessive. The Founders would hang half of authorities who serve today in Govt. for messing the good start that should have become better with time.
Must agree Steve. What really needs to happen is all court hearings should be recorded and logged into a database where anyone can download them to their computer without charge but that would be too simple. Depositions could be done the same way, maybe with a special release number only given to lawyers via the BAR so they don't become public knowledge. But that's too easy, right?
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
In the age of digital audio (and digital video) this should have been automated by now. Fees to cover the equipment, maintenance, and other costs are reasonable; but tens of dollars each should be plenty. The fact that public rights to the proceedings are specified in the US Constitution also means that government (taxes) must support this effort legally and financially. Mechanical devices are subject to noise and malfunction also; however, they don't turn "yes" into "no."
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
" - however, they don't turn "yes" into "no." " But the human element does. Our brain will often hear what we expect it to hear regardless of what was said. I have participated in studies where we have found that 100% inspection is never 100% perfect. Even something as simple as separating black balls from white balls will have an error rate of 3-5%, especially when the black balls are a disproportionate number than the white balls. If the stenographer was expecting the witness to say "no" then that may be what they hear.
@@alanmcentee9457 It took you three paragraphs to say the same thing I already said in my last sentence. I don't think mine are the communication skills that should concern you.
In working with such things I've seen several covert recordings that revealed courts altering the record of events to screw over a targeted defendant. They also double down on the injustice when revealed of course. The legal society frequently reveals that it deserves no power nor reverence because they allow so much rot in their ranks.
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
Very clearly it appears the courts are attempting to limit "transparency". I've been in court and on numerous occasions they do NOT allow ANY recording of the proceedings, either audio of video. A friend of mine went to court on a traffic violation, the judge reached over, turned off the court recording device, told him, "you're guilty", turned it back on and then started the formal court process!
I would have gladly asked to take the hearing to a court of my peers and ask for their proof. Not just his word, his proof. And you are legally allowed to have your own audio recording as long as you tell the court first.
In AZ we need to request permission in advance to audio and video record! If the judge allows video and audio you must do it in a manner not to disturb the courts functions. Stay out of the way, keep cords managed and clear… Mostly if your allowed its just audio and lots of the time no recording at all! We fight it daily the judicial system is filled with Tyrants that dont want the tyranny exposed! Needs to go before SCOTUS on a violation of 1st and 5th amendment rights?
Transcription is a skilled service. It takes effort, time, and experience to do well. The cost of a digital copy of a digital audio file should be close enough to negligible.
Unless their records are so badly organized someone has to search for a meaningful amount of time, instead of just typing the date and room into a computer, and having it hand them the file.
@@CiaranMaxwell Pretty sure they're obligated to store the recordings whether or not you request a copy. As such, storage costs are not a cost of you requesting or receiving a copy, and should not be borne by user fees.
Sixth Amendment; right to a public trial. If there are camaras in the courtroom the public should have access to the video and if only mics we should have access to the recordings.
"not easy to copy this stuff off." Are you kidding me Steve? I have been in a job that had FOIA requests. I have sent Gigabytes of info in minutes. 1) find relevant folder. 2) stick a blank DVD in the drive. 3) Slide the folder icon over. 4) Get a soda while waiting for the copy to finish 5) Put the DVD in it's case and the case in a padded envelope. 6) Mail. Just minutes and it's done. And most of that time you have free waiting for the copy to finish. You can grab a quick soda, run to the restroom, play half a game of Solitaire... The only hard part is when they don't specify what they want very well. And a transcript for a case is very specific. -The real issue I would suspect is that the Judge doesn't want things that have been said that the Judge then told the court reporter to 'strike from the record' or things that were said in ways that the typed version will not carry the vocal tone and any obvious emotional emphasis. Because most likely those were relevant and anything said in the court will affect decisions, even when 'struck'. So a voice recording would have to be totally Richard Nixoned before sent out, and that would sometimes have omission errors and evidence of omissions.
There's a cop watcher in Arizona who found a statute that allows for the audio recording of court proceedings. He told the judge he was going to audio record and the judge ruled he couldn't. After informing the judge of the statute the judge thanked him and said he nor any of his fellow judges were ever aware of the law.
I had a hearing for a parks and recreation citation, when I came in I asked the "judge" if I could record the hearing. He said yes, so I sat down and set up my phone to video the proceedings without a further thought about it. About 2/3 the way through the "judge" asked if I was video recording to which I said yes and he had a problem with being video recorded, so I just pointed the camera down to point at the table for the remaining part of it. of course when I was sent the "findings" of the hearing, they in no way matched what happened in the hearing including them stating several things happened during the hearing that did not happen... the hearing was rigged in the favor of the parks and recreation. the "judge" presiding over the hearing was a retired judge, and as far as I could tell he no longer had that status or authority
I was charged with Trespassing. In my successful Rasmussen hearing (motion to dismiss) I stated “No, there was no trespass order in force”. The court reporter had “No, there was no trespass order enforced”. That’s a big difference. She changed it for me at my request. I assume she had a recording. But damn, if she didn’t believe me, what could I do? It was a malicious prosecution. Claiming they didn’t enforce an order from a a lot different than saying there was no order in force.
That's why it's important to be a lot less ambiguous. You could have simply said, _there was no trespass order._ Right? If such an order didn't exist, further alliteration on the matter can only be confusing.
"...magical typing box...". Great description! Most would be asking for an explanation if you said "stenotype". Magical Typing Box is understood more universally.
It sounds like a scam to make any future claim for the audio moot or frivolous to me ! You absolutely have a right to the audio and to any other evidence that may help your case it absolutely is a due process issue! Also what is the point of the audio recording if neither party is allowed to access it especially if you are appealing for misconduct or error!
this occurred 20 yr ago: I asked for audio transcript ( diff state), recieved the cheapest possible casset tape wholly unintellegable, $14. Any future such court appearance: absolutely ask permission to record.
All courts should automatically upload video of trials straight to TH-cam….. no cost to the state to store the video and no cost the public to view court cases
I respectfully disagree. There's a lot of redaction that should take place. It wouldn't be fair to many victims. For example like children, sexual assault victims, domestic violence victims, and so on. Also what about family court? Many would agree that they don't want there personal matters on TH-cam. If you want to do a public records request? Sure go ahead. But many things should be redacted like addresses, names of minors, and so on.
@@UrokLizard better than not getting any video, or being charged a ridiculously high fee to get a video…. A risk I’m willing to take…. And you could still go get the video and/or the way it’s done now straight from the court if you think there is something missing from TH-cam…. This would not stop you from doing that…
Audio copies must be available as how a person answers a question can be as telling as the answer itself, did they answer straight away or did they take their time thinking about it, did they sound confident in their answer or uneasy?
Several years ago I was assisting a family member file for a restraining order. It took several hearings, each with a different judge. At the time, and probably still today, they no longer had court recorders in most cases in this county, due to budget cuts. (Southern California). At the end of every hearing, the defendent's attorney requested attorney's fees, which were always denied. After the case was ruled on, and attorney's fees denied again, they filed another hearing to request attorney's fees, and the attorney stated in court that they had not requested attorney's fees in any of the previous hearings, when of course they'd requested then all of them. But with no court recording...
I am interested in the rationale for not supplying a court record on request. What's more, no one makes audio recordings using magnetic tape anymore, everything is a digital file. If someone wants the recording of a particular case, the court can just send the audio from the whole morning and let the requester sort it out.
If you ever didn’t watch Steve’s videos all the way through, you missed something. He may repeat & rephrase & you think you got it, but at 10:45, you would have missed this gem if you bailed early.
Let's be serious, the audio recording is on computer. It literally takes a push off the button to send it through email. The time involved in finding the recording for a specific time it starts and stops. Even if it took a half an hour, at 30 dollars an hour, you could charge them for the whole hour and it would be negligible. My guess is they would charge the same amount for actually transcribing it take the week to two weeks to get to you. It is all about an employee with a job that is not needed anymore in the age of digital, trying to keep their jobs. The same thing happened around the country when automobiles started to become mainstream. Buggy companies got laws passed to keep people from using those cars.
Yeah, this seems like a very bad ruling. Because you didn't think to ask you automatically lose your ability to have the publicly recorded audio? It's public property, anyone should have the ability to obtain a copy of the audio recording.
Court proceedings should be utterly transparent. ANYTHING that clouds them at all, should be a clear 5th amendment violation, and parties responsible stripped of any powers to meddle in any such affairs further, and criminally and civilly prosecuted for the violation.
In Massachusetts, a friend of mine had a case in family court and the judge ruled and he went to file an appeal and they couldn't find the court transcript, it was gone. Mass had put in place an automated court reporter system that malfunctioned and because of it he couldn't file an appeal. No transcript, no appeal possible. Talk about a due process violation, but some states don't recognize family court as a court protected under US Constitutional due process protections. He then requested to file an appeal based on the judges notes and the judge denied that motion. Things can be bad in criminal court but omg family court is a five star disaster.
This reminds me of when I worked for a hospital in the anaphoresis lab and had to replicate a patients cancer fighting cells so it could be reinfused into him. What cost the hospital 12 bucks to produce and mind you this is the patients own property (his cells). They then tried to charge him 10 grand for one plasma unit. His insurance wouldn't cover it and he couldn't afford it. I was then told to destroy the unit... One week after that I quit my job and privatized my practicing license and now grow 420 specifically for people dying of cancer at rock bottom prices... I break even almost every year but it's worth it because my patients can eat and it helps with their recovery...
Drunk Driver in a Chevy Blazer (.2 BAC) drove into the back of my car at 45MPH while I was stopped at a light. I was in court standing next to him plead to DUI if reckless driving charge dropped. He plead to it and was fined $1K surcharge for 3 Years, $450 court costs and mandatory loss of license for 6 months. When my attorney got the transcript, he plead to Careless Driving and no other major costs. I called the court to ask for the audio and they said there was a 10 minute malfunction in the tape and the audio for my case was lost. I was just 20-something so I didn't know that property and physical injury could not be just a careless charge. My attorney said to drop it because it would not affect my small settlement. I can a damaged Buick Grand National with 20K miles that needed the rear-end replaced, and I have permanent back injuries that are just getting worse. All I got for physical was $18K. The courts prevent people from bringing in their own recording devices, and now I know why.
Weird. Here in KY the last time I had to get a transcript, they actually gave me the option to get the audio recordings, which I actually wanted since a judge was playing "fast and loose" in the courtroom and I wanted to make sure it was included as part of the record.
Lawyers are like auto mechanics. Some are brilliant and will get you back on the road. Some are useless and will get you off the road. Be sure to get the right lawyer. Especially if you are going to Federal court for an appeal. Expensive, but otherwise why bother?
My god this is so true. state public defender... Doesnt even listenb to what i say, kept insisting something he had no way of hearing since it was a weird lie that was inconsequential since the whole thing is a sham, and it turns out it was part of the police report i just didnt read and remember it. So Im sitting there thinking okay he has heard me explain this but he forgets because 300 people a day (hyperbole) and uses them to get the picture WELL THEY LIED
When it cost hundreds of dollars per hour and up to have legal representation, and my freedom and/or money are on the line. We must have the most accurately recorded and transparent proceeding as possible.
How rigid is this system, when the audio is supposedly secret in the first place, and then the appeals court decides 'you didn't argue it correctly so we deny you this simple thing you probably should be able to get for a modest fee like the transcript' ?
Also Sixth Amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." Doesn't this mean that the actual trial must be publicized without limit? I agree that due process applies. I also agree that the First Amendment implies that journalists have a right to observe, to record, and to publicize the essence of their stories. My suit would have included all three of these points (and anything else that case particulars made relevant).
without limit means judge judy but for peple getting their lives destroyed by things like the natural conclusiuon of the cops tv show, my local sherrif departmnet and an oppressive police
what if the court audio recording picks up privileged information from the other side? Wouldn't that create something of a mess if handed to the wrong people?
If it was privileged, why was it disclosed in a public proceeding? Or was it only partially privileged? If it was privileged then maybe the person who disclosed it should be sued for damages?
Real question. How does one go about obtaining our ENTIRE public records? Not just the part the state deems you are allowed to see. How do we see what businesses are aloud to use to discriminate against us?
With several sprees of judicial misconduct and clear cases of improper relations between judges and business entities, AGs, government officials, police, and attorneys I think it's high time court rooms be public broadcast.
In AL, I couldn't even get a transcript. I saw the court reporter after court and asked if I could get a transcript. He said "sure, go to get it here". When I went where he told me, they claimed there wasn't a court reported transcript. I watched the court reporter during court.
The court is a public institution created by and for the People of this Nation. They have no proprietary rights. If the Court maintains an audio recording on record, it belongs to the public, not the Court. If they don't like it they can pursue a career in the private industry. It would seem that our government does not understand the difference between a public and private institution.
To me it sounds like the judges in this case are using “unpublished “ to state that the plaintiffs attorneys are barking up the wrong tree with their arguments on this. They are avoiding a precedent that could limit their ability to revisit this under a due process argument.
In Maryland, they are only providing audio now for like $10-20 for them to burn to CD. If you want a transcript it's like $200 and takes up to 90 days...
If the recordings are digital and the court system is properly organizing their files it would take no more than a minute to provide a copy of the audio. If these things aren't true, the court system is either corrupt or so incompetent they should be shut down.
So much for due process... But imagine that the Gov't would ever refuse to be public or transparent... That would never happen... I mean why would you ever expect the Gov't to ever be on the side of liberty, the truth, or even being able to see legally applicable evidence. In the long run the stenographer will be replaced by Google voice to text, and still at that point the audio should still be accessible to the parties. Imagine when the court uses a voice to text, havent we all tried to send a text by voice and it gets all screwed up? If the court decides to recrd audio then that audio should be accessible by the attorneys, if not the public, it's an official document at this point. This is ludicrous... I really think the cameras and audio are just for the court's "security" and to be used against you when they want to use it against you.
If I cannot access the PUBLIC records of the case against me, *how do I know that the case against me is even legitimate???*
To be fair, you were there in person. For the most part. But yes.
@@orppranator5230 Memory is incredibly faulty, and humans make error and that includes the stenographer.
in that case it is NOT legitimate.
This is when we need to make legislation to override this nonsense. The court system should strive to be as transparent as possible. The audio recordings should be readily and freely available for public inspection, no court order needed.
The ruling sounds unconstitutional. If I'm not incorrect, you have a rigor to a public trial, so any and All información pertaining to a case Should pe public.
*right*
Think all hearings should be recorded and be available to the public either during or after completion of the trial.
: I wholeheartedly agree. This is ridiculous.
Agreed. They're even recording SCOTUS arguments and posting them on their website for public listening!
sounds fishy to me a court reporter could put anything down and now you have no way to dispute it .
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
@@ptrshabyers1797 is there are reason for this regutiated drivel that is also completely at odds with the point when apparently, no the audio tape IS NOT public record
@@ptrshabyers1797 That's interesting. The court reporter is acting in a limited way as a notary to preserve the record because in most states notaries can authenticate records that they themselves create, but not records where there is a custodian of records (like a birth certificate). My guess is that if there is some sort of custodian of records for audio recordings that they could also do this.
This brings up a ton of questions. How long must the court retain audio recordings of court proceedings or if they retain them at al
Of course if you had a True Copy of the Audio certified by the court reporter of record then a question can arise if the audio has been tampered with. We live in an age of deep fakes when anything can be altered.
It seems like the court doesn't want to open a can of worms.
@@KabobHope I think the deep fake can of worms needs to be opened, because at some point it'll get way out of hand.
@@ptrshabyers1797 Again, that is only for FEDERAL COURTS. 98% of all trials, hearings, etc. are held in State courts.
Second, as the court clerk, anything released by the Court Clerk has his seal attached authenticating it as an official record. They do not need to "certify" any record containing their seal.
Most people have no idea what really goes on in courts, the stuff that lawyers and judges say and do behind the scenes is totally disgusting. 🤔
Look at "my defense guide" channel video "massive court corruption". It's shocking!
Damn straight.
It's disgusting.
which the court recorder probably doesnt record, and they dont want it on record.
I would ask under the Americans with disabilities act, and say I lost my reading glasses.
your beat me to it
Also there argument in court was totally wrong and they should have gone the way of that Steve said because it totally matched the case
I had a case (I was Pro se) where I was appealing a guardianship case where the judge said some things antagonistically in a previous case. One of the points in my appeal was that the judge should have recused himself from this case because of his behavior in the previous case. When I sent the transcript to the appellate division (along with the brief) I asked the appellate court to not only read the transcript but also listen to the audio because the judge's tone of voice made it very clear that he had a prejudice against me. Apparently, the 3 judge panel did because I won the appeal unanimously. In the opinion, it was said that it was not so much what the judge said, but it was in the way he said it that showed bias against the appellant (me).
Imagine the case of the guy in Utah who's Lawyers got him thrown in Jail for being late, 15 mins before court started. Without the audio, it's just would not have been the same. Hearing his lawyers conspiring to have a warrant issued was way more shocking than reading about it. The court reporter would not have recorded what the Public Defenders had been talking about before the court came to order. But the Court AV System was recording and it seem that the recording should be a Public Record because the public paid for the system and the public Defenders are paid by the public. Good thing Utahs not in the Sixth Circuit.
Had a case in a small county court in WV and the Judge said this wasn't the State Capital, where I live, and they can do whatever they want in their courts. And then looked at reporter and said "you know what to do". That statement or the comment to the reporter did not make it into the transcript. As well as many comments made by judge and the opposing council. Ruling went against us but we won in the end at a higher court where the rule of law applies. When travelling into that county I always tell people in my car to grab hold of something because the rules of law, God or Nature do not apply in this county.
We have guns for a reason in this country. The moment that judge said that, he should have been deleted from humanity.
I agree that this is about transparency. Human beings make mistakes, and an inaccurate record can completely change what happens during an appeal. Heck, technically we could have a corrupt court reporter along with this.
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
@@ptrshabyers1797 Self-authentication?
As in, 'we've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing'?
@@SupLuiKir self authenticating, meaning court transcripts can be determined as legitimate when compared to audio recordings.
@@ptrshabyers1797 I didn't pass that law. And no one consulted me or anyone else.
Folks, the state can't just make up laws. If someone records you, you have the inviolable right to the recording.
Someone broke the law. Someone else is trying to protect that person. No law makes THAT legal.
If you can point to a corrupt court reporter case I'd like to see an example of it. Rather than hyperbole.
When transparency hits the courts, we will fully understand that the goal of the court is to clear the docket, truth be damned.
Once again, a court "interpreting" plain English to mean something completely different from what it says
Plain English when its conveient, spirit of the law when its convenient.
Law IS NOT English.....
@@6StimuL84 what is it then?
@@joriskylie6857 Languages have dictionaries...English has a Dictionary and Law has a LAW Dictionary....This really needs to be explained?
@@6StimuL84 no wonder there are problems
Makes you wonder why they are trying to keep the audio a secret anyway...
What are they hiding?
This is another example of a Court that simply doesn't grasp the importance that accurate information must be available to litigants without the possible corruption of human error. It becomes mind boggling to know that there are Judges sitting on these Courts and they can't see the necessity of handing down decisions that ensure justice is served. How can we trust such a system?
They people who stifle and prevent transparency definitely know and understand the importance of it.
The answer is simple. We Cannot.
Roger think of the PROCESS THE DECROUM!!! THe FINALITY of the justice system is so important and if you read the PLAIN TEXT of the CONSTITUTION youll see where i scratched in the outrage im saying right now
Also, Justice Thomas said that about finality: no fuck you guy trying to appeal death penalty, even if the prosecutor actually HId evidenbce that proves you couldnt have done it, you have no standing because it would be offensive to our beautiful and just system, the finality needs to be given a handy.
Job security for them
@@CT_Taylor A broken, corrupt system, that has so many supporters doesn't need any real Constitutional Text to operate. Common Sense Law isn't even acknowledged as practical. We can't even agree anymore on what constitutes decency, fair, or excessive. The Founders would hang half of authorities who serve today in Govt. for messing the good start that should have become better with time.
All courts and cases should be Livestreamed freely open to the public viewing
Must agree Steve. What really needs to happen is all court hearings should be recorded and logged into a database where anyone can download them to their computer without charge but that would be too simple. Depositions could be done the same way, maybe with a special release number only given to lawyers via the BAR so they don't become public knowledge. But that's too easy, right?
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
@@ptrshabyers1797 Federal rules do not apply to State proceedings.
@@ptrshabyers1797 You keep posting the same thing over and over in response to comments with completely different content. What exactly is your point?
So a database where anyone can download and tamper with them with $20 worth of software, check.
"The court is not there to do busy work for you."
True. They are there to do busy work AGAINST you.
In the age of digital audio (and digital video) this should have been automated by now. Fees to cover the equipment, maintenance, and other costs are reasonable; but tens of dollars each should be plenty. The fact that public rights to the proceedings are specified in the US Constitution also means that government (taxes) must support this effort legally and financially. Mechanical devices are subject to noise and malfunction also; however, they don't turn "yes" into "no."
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
" - however, they don't turn "yes" into "no." "
But the human element does. Our brain will often hear what we expect it to hear regardless of what was said.
I have participated in studies where we have found that 100% inspection is never 100% perfect. Even something as simple as separating black balls from white balls will have an error rate of 3-5%, especially when the black balls are a disproportionate number than the white balls.
If the stenographer was expecting the witness to say "no" then that may be what they hear.
@@alanmcentee9457 Not familiar with comparison and contrast, eh?
@@byronwatkins2565 Not familiar with how to make an argument? Eh?
@@alanmcentee9457 It took you three paragraphs to say the same thing I already said in my last sentence. I don't think mine are the communication skills that should concern you.
I snuck a hidden recorder into court for my divorce, the transcripts didn't always mach up that well
In working with such things I've seen several covert recordings that revealed courts altering the record of events to screw over a targeted defendant. They also double down on the injustice when revealed of course. The legal society frequently reveals that it deserves no power nor reverence because they allow so much rot in their ranks.
All governments are false.
Official audio recordings obtained from the clerk's office are self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 9002 when accompanied by a written certification by the clerk that the audio recording is a true copy of the official record.
@@ptrshabyers1797 you, like many, seem to severely underestimate the degree of corruption in the justice system.
Very clearly it appears the courts are attempting to limit "transparency". I've been in court and on numerous occasions they do NOT allow ANY recording of the proceedings, either audio of video. A friend of mine went to court on a traffic violation, the judge reached over, turned off the court recording device, told him, "you're guilty", turned it back on and then started the formal court process!
I would have gladly asked to take the hearing to a court of my peers and ask for their proof.
Not just his word, his proof. And you are legally allowed to have your own audio recording as long as you tell the court first.
It always screamed banana republic to me that federal court houses don’t allow video/tape recording
In AZ we need to request permission in advance to audio and video record! If the judge allows video and audio you must do it in a manner not to disturb the courts functions. Stay out of the way, keep cords managed and clear… Mostly if your allowed its just audio and lots of the time no recording at all! We fight it daily the judicial system is filled with Tyrants that dont want the tyranny exposed! Needs to go before SCOTUS on a violation of 1st and 5th amendment rights?
Why do you need permission to record court proceedings *when literally ANYONE can just walk into a courtroom and watch what happens?*
Arizona once again out doing itself in tyranny lmao
Transcription is a skilled service. It takes effort, time, and experience to do well.
The cost of a digital copy of a digital audio file should be close enough to negligible.
Unless their records are so badly organized someone has to search for a meaningful amount of time, instead of just typing the date and room into a computer, and having it hand them the file.
@@Br3ttM " *should* "
There's also storage to consider.
@@CiaranMaxwell Pretty sure they're obligated to store the recordings whether or not you request a copy. As such, storage costs are not a cost of you requesting or receiving a copy, and should not be borne by user fees.
Sixth Amendment; right to a public trial. If there are camaras in the courtroom the public should have access to the video and if only mics we should have access to the recordings.
Public pays the court reporter.
Public pays for the recording.
You have an indirect right due to FOIA.
This is nonsense and shows why that we need to overhaul the judicial system .
That doesn't sound logical - "You" have no right to the ______ from "your" _____.
What a farce....they should have been given the bloody audio.
Obviously
"not easy to copy this stuff off." Are you kidding me Steve? I have been in a job that had FOIA requests. I have sent Gigabytes of info in minutes. 1) find relevant folder. 2) stick a blank DVD in the drive. 3) Slide the folder icon over. 4) Get a soda while waiting for the copy to finish 5) Put the DVD in it's case and the case in a padded envelope. 6) Mail. Just minutes and it's done. And most of that time you have free waiting for the copy to finish. You can grab a quick soda, run to the restroom, play half a game of Solitaire... The only hard part is when they don't specify what they want very well. And a transcript for a case is very specific.
-The real issue I would suspect is that the Judge doesn't want things that have been said that the Judge then told the court reporter to 'strike from the record' or things that were said in ways that the typed version will not carry the vocal tone and any obvious emotional emphasis. Because most likely those were relevant and anything said in the court will affect decisions, even when 'struck'. So a voice recording would have to be totally Richard Nixoned before sent out, and that would sometimes have omission errors and evidence of omissions.
There's a cop watcher in Arizona who found a statute that allows for the audio recording of court proceedings. He told the judge he was going to audio record and the judge ruled he couldn't. After informing the judge of the statute the judge thanked him and said he nor any of his fellow judges were ever aware of the law.
And they are responsible for making rulings on law.
What is the statute?
@@leef_me8112 I don't know what the ARS (Arizona revised statute) is but the video is on his channel Direct D.
@@ingiford175 who is they?
of course a judge[magistrate] doesn't know law. they know statute. (treated as law by consent)
I had a hearing for a parks and recreation citation, when I came in I asked the "judge" if I could record the hearing. He said yes, so I sat down and set up my phone to video the proceedings without a further thought about it. About 2/3 the way through the "judge" asked if I was video recording to which I said yes and he had a problem with being video recorded, so I just pointed the camera down to point at the table for the remaining part of it. of course when I was sent the "findings" of the hearing, they in no way matched what happened in the hearing including them stating several things happened during the hearing that did not happen... the hearing was rigged in the favor of the parks and recreation. the "judge" presiding over the hearing was a retired judge, and as far as I could tell he no longer had that status or authority
Because no laws are served there
I was charged with Trespassing. In my successful Rasmussen hearing (motion to dismiss) I stated “No, there was no trespass order in force”. The court reporter had “No, there was no trespass order enforced”.
That’s a big difference. She changed it for me at my request. I assume she had a recording. But damn, if she didn’t believe me, what could I do?
It was a malicious prosecution. Claiming they didn’t enforce an order from a a lot different than saying there was no order in force.
That's why it's important to be a lot less ambiguous. You could have simply said, _there was no trespass order._ Right? If such an order didn't exist, further alliteration on the matter can only be confusing.
Given that stenography is based on sound rather than spelling, that's not an unreasonable error.
I have not been to court in many years, but I was past a court room recently, and a sign out front said NO RECORDING DEVICES ALLOWED IN COURT.
"...magical typing box...". Great description! Most would be asking for an explanation if you said "stenotype". Magical Typing Box is understood more universally.
It sounds like a scam to make any future claim for the audio moot or frivolous to me ! You absolutely have a right to the audio and to any other evidence that may help your case it absolutely is a due process issue! Also what is the point of the audio recording if neither party is allowed to access it especially if you are appealing for misconduct or error!
this occurred 20 yr ago: I asked for audio transcript ( diff state), recieved the cheapest possible casset tape wholly unintellegable, $14. Any future such court appearance: absolutely ask permission to record.
All courts should automatically upload video of trials straight to TH-cam….. no cost to the state to store the video and no cost the public to view court cases
but TH-cam is a privately owned company and they could tamper with these videos or remove them as they see fit. They are not 100% impartial.
I respectfully disagree. There's a lot of redaction that should take place. It wouldn't be fair to many victims. For example like children, sexual assault victims, domestic violence victims, and so on.
Also what about family court? Many would agree that they don't want there personal matters on TH-cam. If you want to do a public records request? Sure go ahead. But many things should be redacted like addresses, names of minors, and so on.
@@UrokLizard better than not getting any video, or being charged a ridiculously high fee to get a video…. A risk I’m willing to take…. And you could still go get the video and/or the way it’s done now straight from the court if you think there is something missing from TH-cam…. This would not stop you from doing that…
@@BenDover-ui7qs if those things were redacted, I would have your vote on this? Done and done
Upload on a governmental page
Audio copies must be available as how a person answers a question can be as telling as the answer itself, did they answer straight away or did they take their time thinking about it, did they sound confident in their answer or uneasy?
Several years ago I was assisting a family member file for a restraining order. It took several hearings, each with a different judge. At the time, and probably still today, they no longer had court recorders in most cases in this county, due to budget cuts. (Southern California).
At the end of every hearing, the defendent's attorney requested attorney's fees, which were always denied. After the case was ruled on, and attorney's fees denied again, they filed another hearing to request attorney's fees, and the attorney stated in court that they had not requested attorney's fees in any of the previous hearings, when of course they'd requested then all of them. But with no court recording...
I am interested in the rationale for not supplying a court record on request. What's more, no one makes audio recordings using magnetic tape anymore, everything is a digital file. If someone wants the recording of a particular case, the court can just send the audio from the whole morning and let the requester sort it out.
The rationale is that the audio recordings will often expose judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. And they can’t have that!
@@bones343 The presumption of being correct in the presence of proof to the contrary: the US way
Emailing an audio file is so labor intensive, probably should cost hundreds of dollars...
The entire "Court recorder"is a scam.
It is not, try to read a transcript for information and to read and closely understand. Now do it from a recording, if you don't know the time stamps.
At what point will honest citizens be left with NO legal recourse? It seems like it may be soon.
It is a beautiful thing to see how our injustice system works.
It sounds like a few judges have something to hide.
Judges are never going to allow something that could put themselves at risk.
Anytime the government decides transparency is a bad idea, we should all be demanding why.
Court transcripts are very expensive per page
I see the problem here being that the judge
Does not know what to charge for the audio tape
If you ever didn’t watch Steve’s videos all the way through, you missed something. He may repeat & rephrase & you think you got it, but at 10:45, you would have missed this gem if you bailed early.
Whew! Glad to know that court reporters don't make mistakes. Thanks for clearing that up!
Digital audio...one file.
Let's be serious, the audio recording is on computer. It literally takes a push off the button to send it through email. The time involved in finding the recording for a specific time it starts and stops. Even if it took a half an hour, at 30 dollars an hour, you could charge them for the whole hour and it would be negligible. My guess is they would charge the same amount for actually transcribing it take the week to two weeks to get to you. It is all about an employee with a job that is not needed anymore in the age of digital, trying to keep their jobs. The same thing happened around the country when automobiles started to become mainstream. Buggy companies got laws passed to keep people from using those cars.
Yeah, this seems like a very bad ruling. Because you didn't think to ask you automatically lose your ability to have the publicly recorded audio? It's public property, anyone should have the ability to obtain a copy of the audio recording.
My voice, my property.
This will be overturned and I believe we're going to see some folks fired for this soon.
What are the judges trying to hide? And why are federal judges trying to help them?
Also under common law access to government documents.
Hourly cost should be no more than minimum wage, otherwise it's a financial discrimination.
No, the court should just eat the cost. It should be universally available anyways.
Court proceedings should be utterly transparent. ANYTHING that clouds them at all, should be a clear 5th amendment violation, and parties responsible stripped of any powers to meddle in any such affairs further, and criminally and civilly prosecuted for the violation.
In Massachusetts, a friend of mine had a case in family court and the judge ruled and he went to file an appeal and they couldn't find the court transcript, it was gone. Mass had put in place an automated court reporter system that malfunctioned and because of it he couldn't file an appeal. No transcript, no appeal possible. Talk about a due process violation, but some states don't recognize family court as a court protected under US Constitutional due process protections. He then requested to file an appeal based on the judges notes and the judge denied that motion. Things can be bad in criminal court but omg family court is a five star disaster.
Great shirt. I'll never forget that radio transmission from Kimi !
I ask about an audio recording in a child custody hearing, and in West Virginia, they were more than happy to sell it to me!!
This reminds me of when I worked for a hospital in the anaphoresis lab and had to replicate a patients cancer fighting cells so it could be reinfused into him. What cost the hospital 12 bucks to produce and mind you this is the patients own property (his cells). They then tried to charge him 10 grand for one plasma unit. His insurance wouldn't cover it and he couldn't afford it. I was then told to destroy the unit...
One week after that I quit my job and privatized my practicing license and now grow 420 specifically for people dying of cancer at rock bottom prices...
I break even almost every year but it's worth it because my patients can eat and it helps with their recovery...
i really like the deeper dives into the workings of the law . thank you.
A "Masterpiece" & "Work in Progress" ... So, a "Waster-Work"!
This sounds strange. If the audio has been recorded, it is trivial to copy it.
I’m sorry, _WHAT?!?_
Ben is behind the Viper
court in palmer Alaska it was not uncommon for audio recording to contradict the transcripts.
Drunk Driver in a Chevy Blazer (.2 BAC) drove into the back of my car at 45MPH while I was stopped at a light. I was in court standing next to him plead to DUI if reckless driving charge dropped. He plead to it and was fined $1K surcharge for 3 Years, $450 court costs and mandatory loss of license for 6 months. When my attorney got the transcript, he plead to Careless Driving and no other major costs. I called the court to ask for the audio and they said there was a 10 minute malfunction in the tape and the audio for my case was lost. I was just 20-something so I didn't know that property and physical injury could not be just a careless charge. My attorney said to drop it because it would not affect my small settlement. I can a damaged Buick Grand National with 20K miles that needed the rear-end replaced, and I have permanent back injuries that are just getting worse. All I got for physical was $18K. The courts prevent people from bringing in their own recording devices, and now I know why.
Weird. Here in KY the last time I had to get a transcript, they actually gave me the option to get the audio recordings, which I actually wanted since a judge was playing "fast and loose" in the courtroom and I wanted to make sure it was included as part of the record.
Ive never had an issue in KY, but im in the middle of something in OH and im not sure whats going on. Not sure a transcript will help, but still.
Lawyers are like auto mechanics. Some are brilliant and will get you back on the road. Some are useless and will get you off the road. Be sure to get the right lawyer. Especially if you are going to Federal court for an appeal. Expensive, but otherwise why bother?
My god this is so true. state public defender... Doesnt even listenb to what i say, kept insisting something he had no way of hearing since it was a weird lie that was inconsequential since the whole thing is a sham, and it turns out it was part of the police report i just didnt read and remember it. So Im sitting there thinking okay he has heard me explain this but he forgets because 300 people a day (hyperbole) and uses them to get the picture
WELL THEY LIED
Nobody in their right mind should trust the judiciary.
I wonder if the inspector generals office would be interested in this.
When it cost hundreds of dollars per hour and up to have legal representation, and my freedom and/or money are on the line. We must have the most accurately recorded and transparent proceeding as possible.
This is one of those weird things the crazies in court get right. You should have the right to record your own court preceeding.
How rigid is this system, when the audio is supposedly secret in the first place, and then the appeals court decides 'you didn't argue it correctly so we deny you this simple thing you probably should be able to get for a modest fee like the transcript' ?
Also Sixth Amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." Doesn't this mean that the actual trial must be publicized without limit? I agree that due process applies. I also agree that the First Amendment implies that journalists have a right to observe, to record, and to publicize the essence of their stories. My suit would have included all three of these points (and anything else that case particulars made relevant).
I agree that it should be public record..the only things which shouldn't be public record is if the case is sealed (like something involving minors).
without limit means judge judy but for peple getting their lives destroyed by things like the natural conclusiuon of the cops tv show, my local sherrif departmnet and an oppressive police
How about the public records act? The recordings are now a public record.
We need to have a maximum limit on the number of laws that can exist. For any new law, two must be removed.
Word. Laws are very rarely repealed. It's not going to get you elected to repeal a law, but it's the same as taking out the trash.
@@foible2085 “it’s not going to get you elected” - ain’t that the truth! I’m beginning to think the majority love their enslavement. 😑
Intentionally done in some places. I can attest to it
All hail our open and transparent government! Of course we have nothing to hide or reason to withhold it!
If police body cameras are a good thing, then audible court records are also a good thing.
what if the court audio recording picks up privileged information from the other side? Wouldn't that create something of a mess if handed to the wrong people?
If it was privileged, why was it disclosed in a public proceeding? Or was it only partially privileged? If it was privileged then maybe the person who disclosed it should be sued for damages?
I would refer you to the recent case regarding Sean Reyes of Long Island Audit vs Berwyn, Illinois
We need full transparency
If the court recording is digital all you need is a thumb drive.
Fuck, that is legitimately terrifying... Also psychologically, I can 100% see how this could happen, totally by accident and go unnoticed by everyone.
Real question. How does one go about obtaining our ENTIRE public records? Not just the part the state deems you are allowed to see. How do we see what businesses are aloud to use to discriminate against us?
With several sprees of judicial misconduct and clear cases of improper relations between judges and business entities, AGs, government officials, police, and attorneys I think it's high time court rooms be public broadcast.
FOIA. It should be public information.
Someday, all of these corrupt judges will face judgement.
In AL, I couldn't even get a transcript. I saw the court reporter after court and asked if I could get a transcript. He said "sure, go to get it here". When I went where he told me, they claimed there wasn't a court reported transcript. I watched the court reporter during court.
Spelling and punctuation matters.
What's in the road ahead?
What's in the road? A head?
The court is a public institution created by and for the People of this Nation. They have no proprietary rights. If the Court maintains an audio recording on record, it belongs to the public, not the Court. If they don't like it they can pursue a career in the private industry. It would seem that our government does not understand the difference between a public and private institution.
Oh the stupidity of the us legal system.
To me it sounds like the judges in this case are using “unpublished “ to state that the plaintiffs attorneys are barking up the wrong tree with their arguments on this. They are avoiding a precedent that could limit their ability to revisit this under a due process argument.
In Maryland, they are only providing audio now for like $10-20 for them to burn to CD. If you want a transcript it's like $200 and takes up to 90 days...
Experience and logic my ass. If they are court records, they are available.
If the recordings are digital and the court system is properly organizing their files it would take no more than a minute to provide a copy of the audio. If these things aren't true, the court system is either corrupt or so incompetent they should be shut down.
Don't forget - The judge has the ability to edit and redact the transcript before it is released.
So much for due process... But imagine that the Gov't would ever refuse to be public or transparent... That would never happen... I mean why would you ever expect the Gov't to ever be on the side of liberty, the truth, or even being able to see legally applicable evidence.
In the long run the stenographer will be replaced by Google voice to text, and still at that point the audio should still be accessible to the parties. Imagine when the court uses a voice to text, havent we all tried to send a text by voice and it gets all screwed up? If the court decides to recrd audio then that audio should be accessible by the attorneys, if not the public, it's an official document at this point. This is ludicrous... I really think the cameras and audio are just for the court's "security" and to be used against you when they want to use it against you.