A shortage of stenographers in South Dakota helped spur unanimous support in a legislative committee for a bill that would allow judges to decide if a stenographer is necessary in lower-level court hearings.
Stenographers, also called court reporters, are people who transcribe everything said in a court proceeding, using stenographic machines with specialized keyboards.
Current law allows the parties involved in misdemeanor criminal or civil cases to demand a stenographer to cover hearings in person.
That’s not usually necessary, though, State Court Administrator Greg Sattizahn told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday at the Capitol in Pierre. An audio recording can be used after the hearing to create an official written transcript if necessary, Sattizahn said, and that’s become the most common method for creating official records in South Dakota.
The technology has been a boon for the state in the face of a steady loss of trained court reporters in recent years, Sattizahn said.
The Unified Judicial System has eight open stenography positions at the moment.
“As those positions come open, we’ve in many cases converted them to court recorders,” Sattizahn said, referring to the audio recording systems used to create transcribable audio records of hearings.
There are 41 court reporters on staff for the state courts at the moment. There are 11 court recorder systems available.
The slim stenography labor pool can create a scheduling burden for felony cases, Sattizahn said — one that can be exacerbated when parties to lower-level cases opt to exercise their right to demand a stenographer.
House Bill 1011 would put the decision on whether a human court reporter is needed in the hands of a case’s presiding judge. No one testified against the bill, which was presented on behalf of the state court systems at the request of South Dakota Supreme Court Justice Steven Jensen.
You can read the full article at South Dakota Searchlight.