Why this case is important:
If a party cannot afford a private court reporter, and the court cannot provide a court reporter, the court must use another method to make a verbatim (word-for-word) record, like an electronic recording of the court proceeding. This case applies to all “proceedings” that take place at court – not just trials or hearings. A free verbatim record must be granted “upon request” which means if you ask for it you should get it.
The court rejected the idea that a formal fee waiver application should be required before granting the request for a free verbatim record. Courts are supposed to be “flexible” when deciding whether someone can afford to pay for a private court reporter. Courts should not be continuing matters to wait for a free court reporter, instead, if a court has electronic recording, the court must use it.
The duty to provide a verbatim record isn’t limited to cases involving fundamental rights or liberty interests – it applies to all cases.
Summary of the case:
See our dedicated page about this case.
View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.
