In order to save money, courts are not providing court reporters. This often means there is no record of the hearing. I am certain that it is just coincidental that no reporter's transcript means no appeal is possible, allowing the judge to rule without fear of appeal.
This can result in injustice. To illustrate, I will give you an example of one of my current cases.
An administrative judge ruled that a person was not telling the truth because the person "denied being represented by counsel even though his attorney also signed off on the agreement."
The transcript reads:
"You were advised and represented by counsel before you signed this agreement, correct?"
"No. I talked to a lawyer."
This would be funny, if it were not also tragic. The person was testifying by telephone from thousands of miles away. Obviously, the person did not understand complex legal language. So the judge ruled that he did not tell the truth.
Without a transcript, there is no way to tell if the judge misheard something. In a divorce, a hearing without a transcript is an exercise in futility. If you have ever talked with both persons involved in a divorce, you know that they hold radically differing views of the facts. So unless testimony is recorded, it is pretty much a waste of breath.
We can all read the transcripts of the Salem witch trials held in 1692. But poor people who can not afford to hire a court reporter will never see the transcripts of their hearings in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment