decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
And here is why... | 89 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And here is why...
Authored by: Chromatix on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:54 PM EDT
Ah, so the court reporter (stenographer) is taking down the testimony only in shorthand. During the readback, the reporter can read that shorthand because they have the training. The jurors generally only read plain English, so having the shorthand wouldn't be helpful.

But in that case, I think I can stand by my (very much lay) analysis. The jury thinks they've detected an internal inconsistency in Dr. Mitchell's testimony, and they want to be sure about it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And here is why...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 07:45 PM EDT
I was a juror on a case where we asked for transcripts. We drove them nuts. I
find it hard to believe that producing them cannot be too difficult in this
modern age, but they had to carefully remove all of the sections containing
material discussed while we were out of the room.

We needed it because there was a recollection by some that one of the witnesses
made an important point, but we couldn't recall exactly who and when or even if
that recollection was true. The transcripts were important and very useful.

To be honest, I don't understand why it is not standard practice. We sat through
4 weeks of evidence. We were understandably instructed that our notes, whilst an
aid to memory, were not evidence. As very few jurors would know shorthand, notes
will always contain holes, miss things that would later appear relevant, and mix
verbatim statements with interpretations.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And here is why...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:08 AM EDT
Groklaw volunteers are amazing - they manage transcripts within hours based on
their hearing; I would assume a standard (of some kind) shorthand is by
/professional/ court stenographers so I cannot belive that only one person could
read the log - there ought to be someone who could transcribe it, especially as
the testimony is going to be re-read from somewhere.

Also with the improvement in text-to-speech software, could the original
testimony be played through such software (when given) and the result checked in
comparison with the stenographer's log.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

And here is why...
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:12 AM EDT

The court reporter will only create a transcript (a process that takes days or even weeks) if one is needed for appeal after the trial.

I don't think that's accurate. If you look at a typical transcript entry on one of the Groklaw timelines, you'll see something like this:

Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

This would seem to imply that the transcript would be available at some point in time regardless of whether the verdict is appealed.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )