法庭书记员短缺常见问题解答
[Updated February 21, 2025]
Read our December 4, 2024 media release
Read our February 21, 2025 media release
What is the current status of the case?
On February 19, 2025, the California Supreme Court accepted the case. The Court ordered the Superior Courts of Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Diego Counties to provide more information about “why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.” The invited the California Legislature to participate in briefing and set a briefing schedule. The Supreme Court only accepts a small percentage of the cases, so its acceptance of this case signals its recognition of the important constitutional issues and the breadth of the impact caused by the shortage.
What is this case about?
This case seeks to protect the constitutional rights of low-income people. Historically, California courts relied on court reporters to create a word-for-word record of what happens in court, known as a “verbatim record.” In recent years, there has been a growing shortage of court reporters, and now courts are regularly unable to provide free court reporters in many cases. People can only get a verbatim record if they hire their own private court reporter. Because low-income people cannot afford this, they are forced to proceed with their cases without any verbatim record. Each day, thousands of hearings happen and there is no verbatim record of what occurred. This violates due process, equal protection, and separation of powers guarantees of the California Constitution.
什么是逐字记录？
A verbatim record is a word-for-word record of what is said during a hearing, trial, or other court proceeding. This includes the testimony, objections, and arguments made by the parties or their attorneys. It also includes the oral statements made by the judge, such as the ruling and reasoning for it.
为什么我需要逐字记录？
在没有官方逐字记录的情况下， 人们可能无法对错误的初审法院判决提出上诉。
Real-life repercussions: Family Violence Appellate Project (FVAP), has been forced to turn away dozens of domestic violence survivors because there was no verbatim record of their hearing. These individuals could have had strong grounds to appeal incorrect trial court rulings, but the lack of a verbatim record made it virtually impossible to win an appeal. In one case, a survivor had been physically abused by her husband – he pulled her out of a car and shoved her into a concrete wall – but the trial court denied her request for a domestic violence restraining order despite photographic evidence of her injuries. Because there was no verbatim record of the hearing, FVAP could not represent the survivor on appeal.
如果没有先前听证会的逐字记录，人们可能会被错误地拒绝关键救济。 例如，当一方要求审判法院修改现有命令或发布新的命令时，逐字记录非常重要。
Real-life repercussions: FVAP was forced to turn away a domestic violence survivor who wanted to challenge a court order modifying the parties’ child visitation order. The court removed a requirement that her children’s father perform sobriety testing before visiting the children, despite evidence that he had been skipping the sobriety tests rather than passing them. Without a verbatim recording of this hearing, FVAP could not assess the merits of a potential appeal, and therefore could not help the survivor challenge an order she thought was dangerous for their children.
What do you hope will be the outcome of this case?
We are asking the California Supreme Court to require that trial courts electronically record court proceedings for low-income people when the court cannot provide a free court reporter. This will ensure that everyone has equal access to a verbatim record.
How does this case impact ordinary Californians?
这 加州司法公正委员会 recently estimated that over one million hearings and trials in family, probate, and other civil cases had no verbatim record from March 2023 to March 2024. People have deeply important interests at stake in these cases, including child custody and visitation, spousal and child support, divorce, conservatorship, guardianship, debt collection, and civil protections from domestic, workplace, and other forms of harassment and violence. The vast majority of Californians cannot afford to bring a private court reporter to court. The California 司法委员会 估计一名私人法庭书记员的平均每日费用为 $3,300。 我们希望确保每个人，无论贫富，都能平等地获得逐字记录，这对于保护这些利益至关重要。
Who are the plaintiff and defendant in this case?
When a case, like this one, is filed directly with the California Supreme Court, the plaintiff is referred to as “Petitioner” and the defendant is referred to as “Respondent.” The Petitioners in this case are Family Violence Appellate Project and Bay Area Legal Aid. The Respondents in this case are the Superior Courts of Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Diego Counties.
Why was this case filed against the Superior Courts of Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Diego Counties?
康特拉科斯塔县、洛杉矶县、圣克拉拉县和圣地亚哥县的高等法院未能按照加州宪法和加州最高法院的判决为低收入人群创建逐字记录 詹姆森诉德斯塔. One court – San Diego – is regularly failing in this respect; the other three – Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and Contra Costa – have recently issued orders designed to help the problem but do not address it fully.
请愿者寻求救济，如果获得批准，将为以下方面提供适当的指导： 所有加州法院 面临法庭记录员短缺所导致的司法公正危机。
为什么这个案件在加州最高法院而不是审判法院开始审理？
The California Supreme Court is the proper court to hear this case. The court reporter shortage is a statewide emergency that directly harms Californians seeking access to justice. Countless people will suffer irreversible harm if this situation continues, because once a hearing or trial has gone unrecorded there is no way to go back in time and get a verbatim record of what happened. Only the California Supreme Court can resolve the important constitutional issues presented in this case in a way that ensures both certainty and consistent state-wide protection for the rights of all low-income people.
什么是电子记录？它是如何工作的？其他州是否允许这样做？
Electronic recording captures the audio of what is said during a hearing via microphones installed in a courtroom. Electronic recording is a well-recognized, reliable method for creating a verbatim record and is routinely used in state and federal courtrooms across the country. In 2022, 33 out of 35 states reported that they permitted the use of electronic recording in all or some hearings. (California Access to Justice Commission, 关于查阅加州审判法庭诉讼记录的议题文件 (Nov. 14, 2024), at pg. 16.) Electronic recording is also used routinely in California administrative law proceedings, and in trial courts for unlimited civil cases like eviction and small claims cases.
当没有法庭书记员时，为什么法院不使用电子记录来创建逐字记录？
California law (Section 69957 of the Government Code) prohibits the use of electronic recording in family law, probate, and other civil cases for the purpose of creating an official verbatim record. The law provides no exception for people who cannot afford to pay for a private court reporter, or when a court-provided court reporter is not available. As a result, low-income people are frequently denied a verbatim record of their court proceedings. This violates due process, equal protection, and separation of powers guarantees of the California Constitution.
您是否要求最高法院授权加州法院使用人工智能（AI）？
No, this case has nothing to do with artificial intelligence (AI). Electronic recording is not created by artificial intelligence. Electronic recording is simply an audio recording of what is said in the courtroom.
如果法院需要为我提供免费的法庭书记员，但是我听证会时没有书记员，该怎么办？
Some courts may offer to postpone (“continue”) a hearing in the hopes that a court reporter will be available on the new date. These continuances may span several weeks or months, depending on how busy the court’s calendar is. There is no guarantee that a court reporter will be available on the new date. When there is no court reporter on the new date, people are faced with the same decision between proceeding without a verbatim record and postponing their case yet again, often when they have an urgent need for court orders.
Real-life repercussions: Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal) had a client seeking a domestic violence restraining order, but there was no court reporter available on the day of the hearing. The hearing was continued to a future date, in hopes that a court reporter would be available then, and the client had to wait several months for the hearing. During that waiting period, there was a temporary restraining order in place to protect the client from her abuser. However, the abuser violated the restraining order multiple times before the hearing, including stalking the client and assaulting one of their minor children. When the client appeared for the hearing, there again was no court reporter available. The judge did not address the fact that the abuser had violated the temporary restraining order. Because no verbatim record was created, BayLegal could not challenge this order.
别人怎样才能支持你的努力？
We appreciate your support as we urge the California Supreme Court to address this constitutional crisis impacting the rights of low-income people. We suggest following us on social media to receive status updates as the case develops.
If you have been impacted by the court reporter shortage, we want to hear your story. Please take a few minutes to share your story 这里.