Comments on: Stenographer Error Gives Convicted Florida Murderer New Trial

By: Egg whites

Egg whites — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:48:39 +0000

He was a drug dealer and a crackhead like his mother, he was a poor excuse of a human being and deserves to rott in jail for the rest of his life! He was a women beater, drug dealer/user , now he is what he should be, a number and a uniform!

By: surrender2012

surrender2012 — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:11:02 +0000

To JVB, an addict defending his family and himself from another addict that attacked him in his own home does not deserve the death penalty. There were two children and the mother that he was trying to protect. That drug deal was never proven the drugs were not even in his house and there was not enough drugs to make him a drug dealer. Now do your research before you comment. God bless you and your lack of intelligence.

By: anal

anal — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:18:16 +0000

Hopefully the defense has a more successful strategy. A video of Randy and his lawyer laughing their ass off at the victim’s family after the “not guilty” verdict is read would be priceless.

By: CH

CH — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:30:29 +0000

No lawyer young or old I know even looks at his or her electronic files. All are printed from emails on paper and reviewed, redacted, or whatever may be desired. The notations are to the record line number on the paper if a court transcript. Furthermore, paper is not subject to the software version in a snapshot of time. Moreover, level of education, economic “class”, gender or race have little bearing on literacy and/or diction. Finally, why is a court reporter solely responsible for bringing supplies? Like all businesses today the employer cut back on them and it was a nightmare to even ask for a paper clip.

By: Jane Bennett

Jane Bennett — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:48:00 +0000

Trials have also been overturned because somebody forgot to push record on the digital audio system in a court. Not having a human there to take it down is a much bigger risk.

This is indeed horrific, but there’s no call to start making grandiose assumptions about her character or history (“welfare-to-work”?? Really? Profile much?) This job is very difficult and the knowledge of how much hangs on whether or not my audio back up has enough memory or battery life keeps me up at night sometimes. Her biggest problem was not failing to bring enough paper to the job. It was failing to have any audio backup. I find the notes to be unhelpful at best and have been writing paper-free for years, but I have at least 2, if not 3 mics; my judge mic, my software backup, and an extra for mumbling witnesses or bored lawyers who won’t project.

The problem with replacing live humans with recorders is that someday they’ll need to transcribe, and that reporter they hire after the fact will have no way to know which of two people who sound alike are speaking or if a witness gestures or nods or any of a number of things we notate, and if something is not heard or questionable, there is no one to ask to repeat it. All humans make mistakes and technology fails us, but these stories are rare. Most reporters are hard working, educated people who take their craft very seriously.

By: LJ

LJ — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:19:50 +0000

These situations do happen, but are few and far between considering all that is written by court reporters every day. If you think this is bad, wait until digital takes over!!!! Heaven help us all.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:57:11 +0000

I still don’t see paper as a necessity. When I type something, the stenograph I use writes to its internal memory and two separate SD cards. I also always transmit to my laptop. When I take that laptop into my home office every day, I plug in a USB external hard drive, and backup software syncs my work folders. On top of the rough draft I have written in shorthand, there is an audio file on the stenograph, the laptop, and a stand-alone digital recorder.

This stenographer’s problem was a combination of a dated stenograph without redundant backups built in, no paper in that stenograph, and no backup of her work computer.

The topic of backups is thoroughly covered and beaten into certified stenographers at the seminars we routinely attend to keep up with our continuing education requirements. Court reporters nationwide are reeling at the sight of this article, but it also serves as a lesson for anybody tasked with maintaining crucial data in their workplace. Backup your backups!

By: drmayeda

drmayeda — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:50:36 +0000

This trial is an example of technology exceeding the rules., Digital recorders are not the answer due to sound alike words. A certain level of clarity and volume is needed to produce a usable transcript. There were multiple problems, a key problem being the equipment used. The internal disc should have used a CD which is written once and can’t be erased.AND been non removable. This protects the integrity of the trial transcript against alteration. That record should have been copied to a computer. Protection software should have been installed ANT updated regularly to avoid electronic problems

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:38:30 +0000

Look people, this woman messed up big time. However she is not alone. First off, her work computer ought to have been virus protected by network administration, this is nothing new in work environments and certainly not in work areas with very sensitive data like this one. Second off, the transcripts ought to be automatically backed up ‘on the fly’ to secure and encrypted file servers. Those file servers ought to be backed up to offline/offsite storage daily without exception.

You can rip on the employee, you can fire the employee, you can put the employee in the slammer but they are humans and are going to make mistakes, regardless. You leave data security to the competence of employees and you have no data security.

You can be a bigot about it too but that doesn’t provide data security either.

By: DoctorBob

DoctorBob — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:14:16 +0000

A murdering drug dealer? Well, I hope in his second trial, he gets the death penalty that he so richly deserves!