FREE-Secure-24/7 Access To Your Transcripts and Exhibits

Posts Tagged ‘verbatim record’

Beijing Introduces Internet Court To Improve Efficiency

Posted on: October 8th, 2018 by Sfl Media No Comments

Technology is advancing the way that court reporting is handled in United States Courts, and technology is being instituted in courts around the world.

China is so invested in the legal aspects of future technological developments that it has set up an entire court system not only set up to deal with technology-related cases but also run by technology.

The Chinese government in Beijing has put into place an internet court powered by facial and speech recognition technology, the China Money Network reported. The goal of the new system is to provide more efficient legal services for the city’s fast-developing technology companies.

The Beijing Internet Court, which is located in Fengtai district, is primarily focused on hearing cases regarding the internet and intellectual property rights, including disputes caused by online loans, online shopping contracts and online copyright cases.

The average duration of an internet  trial is 41 days, about half that of a conventional court trial in China, and a hearing lasts 28 minutes, whichis 60 percent.

Beijing’s internet court is the second in the country. An internet court was opened in 2017 in Hangzhou, and China plans to set up a third internet court in Guangzhou.

“The judges and all the parties are connected via a screen, where the plaintiffs and the defendants can participate in court hearings via their computers or mobile-phones,” Zhu Ting, a judge at the Beijing Internet Court, told state-owned Chinese media outlet Xinhua News Agency.

The court uses facial recognition and speech recognition technology during the online proceedings that draws on a national ID system curated by the country’s public security bureaus to verify participants’ identities. Electronic signatures are used to sign any documents.

The Beijing internet court also can automatically generate legal documents, use machine translation and allow voice interactions with its knowledge system.

According to Xinhaua, Beijing handled 45,382 internet-related cases including online shopping and online service contracts in 2017. In the eight months from January to August 2018, cases increased to 37,631, with a growth rate of nearly 25 percent.

Poor Californians Win Right To Court Reporters

Posted on: July 16th, 2018 by Sfl Media No Comments
court reporter

The California Supreme Court has ruled everyone is entitled to a court reporter in that state.

The California Supreme Court has enshrined the right to a private court reporter in civil cases, whether they can afford one or not.

Judges on the court ruled unanimously that everyone is entitled to a verbatim record of their proceeding. The ruling is a reaction to cost-cutting in San Diego County that deprived some civil litigants of the services of a court reporter.

According to Courthouse News Service:

“By precluding an indigent litigant from obtaining the attendance of an official court reporter (to which the litigant would be entitled without payment of a fee), while at the same time preserving the right of financially able litigants to obtain an officially recognized pro tempore court reporter, the challenged court policy creates the type of restriction of meaningful access to the civil judicial process that the relevant California in forma pauperis precedents and legislative policy render impermissible,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote. “Accordingly, we conclude that the court policy in question is invalid as applied to plaintiff and other fee waiver recipients, and that an official court reporter, or other valid means to create an official verbatim record for purposes of appeal, must generally be made available to in forma pauperis litigants upon request.”

The ruling acknowledges the importance of a verbatim record from a qualified court reporter in such issues as appeals.

Michael Shipley, who argued the case before the California Supreme Court on behalf of Barry Jameson, a prison inmate who brought the suit, said, “I practice in state court all the time for nonindigent litigants and we’re all sensitive to the fact that the courts don’t have unlimited amounts of money. But the court was clear that the solution to that problem cannot exist to deny access to justice for poor litigants. Access to justice is a huge civil rights issue and we had 40 different organizations that either filed or joined amicus briefs because this issue was affecting in a negative way all kinds of people’s rights to petition the government for redress of their grievances.”