Month: September 2018
That Court Reporter Won’t Stop Interrupting!
Sometimes attorneys, especially those who haven’t taken many
depositions, get irritated when the court reporter interrupts.
A professional court reporter will interrupt an attorney or
a witness for multiple reasons, all of which are aimed at one thing – ensuring
that a clear, verbatim record is obtained. Here are a few
of the reasons:
1. Speaking too
softly. If the court reporter can’t hear it, they can’t take it down.
2. Mumbling. It’s
easy for a witness or an attorney to start talking on auto-pilot and run their
words together. Even if the subject matter is old hat to the attorneys and
witness, it might not be old hat to the reporter, who needs to hear the
terminology clearly.
3. Speaking over each
other. Though most court reporters
seem to be miracle workers, there’s no way they can take down a verbatim record
when two or more people are speaking at the same time.
4. Speaking at the
speed of light. To pass certification tests, court reporters must be able to
accurately take down testimony at rapid speeds – over 225 words per minute.
Occasionally attorneys or witnesses speak at an even faster pace. When they do,
the reporter will interrupt and ask for everyone to slow down just a bit.
By knowing what makes a court reporter interrupt a
deposition, and taking steps to lessen the “triggers,” you can
prevent a good number of interruptions. There will be a number of witnesses who
don’t follow your directives, so if you have a court reporter who doesn’t
hesitate to interrupt the deposition, you’ll know you have a good one.
Interrupting isn’t a sign of the reporter’s incompetence; it’s a sign that you
have a court reporter that’s attentive, conscientious, and cares about
accurately capturing the record.
Defendant Duct Taped
When a defendant in a criminal case
failed to follow the judge’s admonition to be quiet until it was his time to
speak so that the court reporter could get all of his words down, the judge
took dramatic action – he had deputies put duct tape over the man’s mouth.
Franklyn Williams, 32, of Cleveland, Ohio, was being
sentenced after a jury had found him guilty of three armed robberies when the
incident occurred. Williams had some complaints about his attorney that he
wanted to share with Judge John Russo. Standard courtroom practice during such
a motion is for the judge to hear from both attorneys, and then ask the
Defendant if he has anything to add. But Williams didn’t want to wait, and kept
talking over the attorneys and even over the judge.
After Williams repeatedly ignored “at least a
dozen” admonitions over a 30-minute time span, the judge ordered deputies
to put duct tape over his mouth. Even then, he kept speaking. It took six
deputies to get the tape applied before the sentencing proceedings could
continue.
“Everybody has the right to go on
the record with my court reporter. But we can’t do it at the same time or
yelling over each other. My intent was never to silence Mr. Williams. I gave
him an opportunity to speak at the appropriate time. More than not, he
continued to speak over me and others in the courtroom.”
Court reporters are a critical part of all trials, but
especially in serious criminal cases where the defendant is facing years in
prison. The only way appeals courts can determine whether a defendant had a
fair trial is by reviewing the official court transcript, and one of the duties
of a trial judge is to ensure that the court reporter is able to capture the
record. Judges frequently ask attorneys to slow down, or speak up, or stop mumbling
– and court reporters often interrupt proceedings with similar requests. As
Judge Russo said, “It’s something we try to advocate in any courtroom, any
hearing, that it is not chaos and there’s transparency, justice, and an
equality of everyone getting a chance to speak their mind.”
The judge also told reporters that it was legal to gag a
defendant, because he was in contempt of court. Indeed, as a Miami Herald writer
pointed out, the Supreme Court has ruled that judges can gag disorderly
defendants:
In the 1970 case Illinois v. Allen, the justices
unanimously decided that defendants do not have an absolute right to even be
present at their trial, let alone speak at it.
The court found that trial judges
could “bind and gag him as a last resort, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite
him for criminal or civil contempt; or (3) remove him from the courtroom, while
the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly,” if a
defendant was being disorderly.
Williams had previously pled guilty to the robbery charge at
issue, but that conviction was set aside when an appeals court found he hadn’t
been properly informed about when he’d be eligible for release. The new trial
began in late 2017, but part of it was held without Williams present after he
cut off an ankle bracelet he had been ordered to wear and fled to Nebraska. The
jury convicted him in absentia, and after he was apprehended he was brought
before Judge Russo for sentencing.