Court Reporters vs. Tape Recorders

“Use of Tapes May Threaten Convictions” (April 28) suggests that the use of tape recorders in place of court reporters is less expensive. Such is not the case. Various independent research organizations have concluded the use of tape recorders is more expensive.

The reason for laws requiring the use of court reporters has nothing to do with reporters’ income but has everything to do with economy, efficiency and the requirement of an accurate verbatim record of court proceedings.

A 1995 study by judicial consultants Crawford and Associates identifies annual cost savings to the courts of Los Angeles County of more than $20 million if use of existing court reporter computer technology were expanded.

One judge suggests that court reporters have created a monopoly for themselves. In fact, our state Legislature has on eight separate occasions since 1981 considered the issue of tape recorders versus court reporters. The Legislature has decided in each instance to require the use of court reporters.

L. KATHERINE INGERSOLL

President, L.A. County Court Reporters Assn.

* I don’t understand why the big campaign lately to portray court reporters as overpaid throwbacks. Nothing could be further from the truth. Reporters are highly trained professionals. They pay for their own equipment and pay for proofers and editors out of their own earnings. Most spend three to five years studying court reporting, many in addition to a college degree.

There is nothing more high-tech and efficient in terms of both time and money (not to mention quality of service) for transcript production than real-time reporting.

MARLENE STRUSS

Santa Barbara Court Reporting Clinic

Santa Barbara