I was reading this story concerning the court reporter in the Andrea Yates case today in the Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2370690 I came upon the following (Slessinger was the Yates court reporter): George Parnham, Yates' attorney, already had paid Slessinger $49,500 for the transcript his client needed to appeal her conviction in the June 2001 bathtub drownings of her five children... Is it normal for court reporters to "own" the transcripts such that they can sell them to the defense attorneys?
Maybe the court reporters own the short hand version of the recorded proceeding and the court actually owns the English translation. But wouldn't the English translation be available for public distribution?
That sounds like a good gig. Forget the MBA . she's getting paid well and by multiple parties. And if the court reporters are allowed to publish novels and scripts on the cases they hear, they must be raking it in. Sounds like a wonderful life.
The court reporter takes the proceedings down in shorthand. If a party wants that transcribed, they pay the cost to manually convert the shorthand to a readable document - for some trials we're talking 100+ hours of testimony. The attorney is paying for the court reporter's time, not some sort of rights fee.
Since the court reporter (at least in this case) is on the county's payroll, doesn't she have to transcribe it for the county on the county's time (e.g. during her normal working hours)? If so, then she has already been paid for it and any fees defense attorneys have to pay should go to the county. If not, why not? I'm just curious, not trying to be argumentative.
this is not atypical at all...and i'm always shocked at the sticker price. even transcripts of very simple hearings can be very expensive...but transcripts of trials are ridiculous. and you better believe that's the client's expense. why in the world would i agree to pay that?
I am having a difficult time deducing the relationship between the court reporter and the county (as it applies in this particular case). I would understand all of this if the reporter was an independent contractor, but in this particular case, she worked for the county. Since the reporter is paid by the county, I don't see why she should benefit from payments by defense attorneys. I would think that they would do any transcribing during their regular "9-5" shift or as overtime pay. I would think all expenses paid by the defense would go to the county who would, in turn, pay the person their normal salary or overtime.
maybe it's because the transcript is being used by the client for an appeal and the appeal is not at the county level. so it's an additional copy of it...assuming the county has the first one?
