Hi,
This is my first post after logging into ccadp for a number of years.
Where do I find out about case information, not just the one or two sentences that are posted but full court room documentation? ...
You can't. By law, you are supposed to be able to purchase the information for a modest fee, however the services who sell it are resisting this and insist on charging large fees for access to it.
This is from
PWC Consulting: -
Greetings!
We have more information about the laws that govern court reporters selling their transcripts, some trivia, and some analysis of the Scott Peterson case.
Distribution and sale of Transcripts
If, as reported in our last issue, Court Reporters do not own their work product, the transcripts, why are they able to sell them? More importantly, why do they think they control access and distribution?
The answer is simple. States have passed laws giving court reporters the right to sell the transcripts they produce.
I have not looked into all states, but I have researched the justification California uses for allowing court reporters to sell their product, even though their salaries are paid out of the public coffers and court recordings are public records.
This justification is explained in Bill Number AB 582, introduced on February 21, 2007 and amended on April 10, 2007.
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the courts are currently paid under a dual compensation structure in which the base salary of the court reporter is supplemented by income from preparing required transcripts and providing other required transcription services.
(b) The dual compensation structure protects the state from bearing the full cost of transcript preparation and other transcription services and avoids the resulting consequences of overtime liability related to these services.
(d) In order to ensure full and fair compensation of official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the court, and in order to attract and retain official court reporters and court reporters pro tempore employed by the courts that have sufficient skills and competence to serve the needs of the justice system, it is imperative that the system of dual compensation provide sufficient payment for transcription services.
Obviously, charging for the transcripts is intended to generate income for the court reporters, not just cover their costs.
Two questions immediately come up. First, just how much do court reporters make for base salary? Second, how much income can they legally generate from the sale of transcripts?
To answer the first question, let's look at some published recruitments for Court Reporters in 2 counties in California which had recent high profile cases: San Mateo and Contra Costa.
A December 2005 recruiting ad for Superior Court, San Mateo County, posted a salary of $5,760 - $7,200 monthly. That equates to an annual salary range of $69,120-$86,400. Source
For Contra Costa County, a 2006 recruiting ad posted the salary range for Superior Court court reporters at $65,754-$82,970.
These positions are county positions, so they come with full benefits.
To answer the second question, we go back to California Code. Sections 69941-69958 govern the production and sale of transcripts.
69950. (a) The fee for transcription for original ribbon or printed copy is eighty-five cents ($0.85) for each 100 words, and for each copy purchased at the same time by the court, party, or other person purchasing the original, fifteen cents ($0.15) for each 100 words.
(b) The fee for a first copy to any court, party, or other person who does not simultaneously purchase the original shall be twenty cents ($0.20) for each 100 words, and for each additional copy, purchased at the same time, fifteen cents ($0.15) for each 100 words.
As for controlling distribution and access, yes, the State has given them that power, too.
69954. (d) Any court, party, or person who has purchased a transcript may, without paying a further fee to the reporter, reproduce a copy or portion thereof as an exhibit pursuant to court order or rule, or for internal use, but shall not otherwise provide or sell a copy or copies to any other party or person.
The terrible irony is that the sale of transcripts is intended to save the State money. The result is quite the opposite, because it is the Courts that have to bear much of the expense. In an analysis of the sought for 30 cent per 100 word increase in the cost of the transcripts, "the Trial Courts' Consolidated Legislation Committee (TCCLC) comments that 'by increasing the rate for original reporter transcripts by $0.30 for each 100 words, this bill would cost over $3.1 million in fees for transcripts that the courts are required to purchase from their own court reporters'."
"The Judicial Council also notes that current law requires the courts in criminal cases to obtain an original certified transcript of the proceedings for the court, and to provide copies to the parties, the cost of which is borne by the court. The Judicial Council therefore notes that the changes to the fee schedule . . . 'represent an increase in transcription costs of 17.4 percent at a statewide cost to the courts of as much as $5 to $7.5 million annually'."
Folks, that's just the cost of the proposed 30 cent fee increase. Multiply that by 2.83 to get the annual cost imposed on the Courts by the 85 cent per 100 word fee -- $14 to $21 million annually.
I can't think of any way to say how ridiculous this is in language fit for a public newsletter.