This week, Taylor Swift engaged in a countersuit against ex-radio DJ David Mueller for sexual assault. Swift won this contentious case and was awarded the symbolic $1 in damages she had requested. According to the pop star, she refused to settle with Mueller because she wanted to provide an example for strength and hope for women who have experienced sexual assault. In this vein, she has also vowed to make donations to multiple organizations that help sexual assault victims defend themselves. Swift’s widespread fame and symbolic victory have elicited a divisive public response, but the court proceedings weren’t the only aspects of the lawsuit to ignite controversy.
The National Court Reporters Foundation (NCRF) and the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) have partnered with the United States Library of Congress in a project to record the personal narratives and histories of U.S. veterans. The Veterans History Project was created by the U.S. Congress in 2000. The legislation authorizing this project received unanimous support from both the House of Representatives and the Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton in October of that year. The Veterans History Project’s aim is to collect, preserve and make available the personal accounts of U.S. war veterans. Through the project’s efforts, the histories of the men and women who have served the country will be documented and protected for years to come. The hope is that, through these first-hand experiences, future generations will be able to learn about the realities of war. (more…)
Transcription is the process of recording the spoken word as written word. While it may seem to be a straightforward skill, transcription is a versatile ability that can be applied to a wide range of career paths. This includes secretarial work, medical transcription, court reporting or legal transcription — to name a few. There is often some confusion concerning these last two professions: court reporting and legal transcription. The titles seem nearly identical, but a court reporter and a legal transcriptionist differ widely in terms of duties and educational requirements. (more…)
Workers in almost all industries experience some anxieties when facing the onset of technology — and understandably so. Replacing human jobs with technology has become an increasingly common occurrence and relevant topic in our society. When confronted with this, it’s natural to fall into a pessimistic thought spiral; to imagine a dystopian future in which robots take over the world à la I, Robot. (more…)
As discussed in our recent blog post on the Court Reporter Shortage, the court reporting industry needs an influx of new, young professionals. Luckily, the industry boasts many advantages that should attract these neophytes to the stenotype. In particular, the educational requirements to become a court reporter are more flexible than those of many other professions. Most young people invest in a four-year college degree program and emerge to an uncertain job market, laden with student debt. By contrast, most court reporting educational programs involve a less financially demanding, two-year certification process. Many programs include online schools for greater convenience. Even better, because of current high demand, court reporters are incredibly employable right out of school. Low risk, high reward. (more…)
2017 has seen the onset of the “war for talent.” Recruiters are struggling to find qualified candidates across all industries. Specifically, jobs that require specialized skill sets are suffering these shortfalls. Registered nurses, pharmacy technicians, software engineers, vocational teachers and many other professionals are in short supply. (more…)
Our culture has a fascination with litigation, particularly litigation involving contention, controversy, tragedy or celebrities. Such legal cases shake our society by disrupting our news cycles, creeping into our small talk and pervading our media consumption. We have an appetite for the sensational, and contentious court cases appeal to that appetite. The following are five of the most famous — and sensational — court cases in US history.
THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPING
On March 1,1932 Charles Lindbergh Jr., the 20 month-old son of aviator Charles Lindbergh, was abducted from his home, then on May 12 of the same year, his body was discovered nearby. In September of 1934, Richard Hauptmann was arrested and tried, and in 1935 he was found guilty and sentenced to death. Although the kidnapping and trial occurred before the advent of nationally televised court proceedings, it stirred up enormous public attention and sympathy. Newspaperman H.L. Mencken called the events “the biggest story since the Resurrection.” The crime prompted Congress to pass the Federal Kidnapping Act, often referred to as the “Lindbergh Law,” making the transportation of a kidnapping victim across state lines a federal crime.
TED BUNDY
In 1979, Ted Bundy stood trial for the Chi Omega homicides and assaults in Miami, Florida. The trial attracted incredible media and public attention, due in part to the grotesque extent of the crimes, and the charming charisma of the rapist and serial killer. The fact that it was the first trial to be nationally televised in the United States only added to the public fascination. Despite the presence of five court-appointed attorneys, Bundy insisted on handling his own defense, even referring to himself in the third person. Ultimately, Bundy refused a plea deal, was found guilty and received three death sentences.
MICHAEL JACKSON
The King of Pop’s reputation was forever tainted when, in 2005, Michael Jackson was indicted for child molestation. The indictment was based upon accusations of Gavin Arvizo, a 13 year-old boy Jackson had befriended. Arvizo’s accusations occurred shortly after the release of Martin Bashir’s documentary, Living with Michael Jackson. In the documentary, Jackson revealed that many children had slept in his bed, but insisted that it was in no way sexual. This fueled speculation surrounding the case, however, Arvizo’s allegations concerned events that supposedly took place after the documentary had aired. Part of the Jackson’s defense against the accusations was that it would be absurd for him to molest Arvinzo just after he was suspected of such a crime. The trial spanned approximately six months and ended with Jackson’s acquittal of all charges.
TIMOTHY MCVEIGH
In August of 1995, Timothy McVeigh was indicted on eleven federal accounts including the conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, the use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction with the use of explosives, and eight counts of first-degree murder. McVeigh, along with co-conspirator Terry Nichols, was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. He detonated a bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring over 600. McVeigh instigated the attack as revenge for the federal government’s handling of the 1993 Waco siege and the 1992 Ruby Ridge incident, hoping to inspire a revolt against the government. This remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in US history and earned McVeigh almost unmatched notoriety. In 1997 McVeigh was found guilty of all charges and received a death sentence.
O.J. SIMPSON
The O.J. Simpson trial, or “The Trial of the Century,” set the precedent for round-the-clock media coverage, garnered international attention, heightened race divisions in the U.S., and imprinted itself permanently on the cultural consciousness. In 1994 Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman were found stabbed outside Nicole’s condo in Brentwood. Simpson was a person of interest in the trial, and when he failed to turn himself in, he became the object of a low-speed pursuit in the famous white Ford Bronco SUV. The televised chase interrupted coverage of the NBA finals, and the pursuit, arrest, and trial were among the most widely publicized events in U.S. history. An estimated 100 million people nationwide tuned in to hear the verdict of “not guilty” for both murders.
America’s obsession with sensational trials, particularly criminal court proceedings, is unlikely to subside anytime soon. Nationally televised coverage of high-profile cases has become part of our culture. It’s a bit like the wreckage of a car crash on the side of the road. It’s often grisly and tragic, but it seems most of us just can’t look away.
Complaints about litigation costs have likely existed for as long as litigation itself. The fact remains: legal disputes, whether commercial or civil, are expensive. Countless factors influence cost, and the price for certain cases can be shockingly steep — “breaking the absurdly large bank” steep. Duration of proceedings, legal complexity, and the financial stakes of either party are factors that can escalate expenses to the extreme. The following are a few of the most expensive court cases in US history; these cases will make the average person’s legal bills seem like pocket change.
The McMartin Preschool Trial: $15 million
As this list will demonstrate, commercial issues constitute a large portion of the most expensive court cases, but they’re not the only type of litigation to rack up astronomical costs. The McMartin trial was a day care sexual abuse case in the 1980’s. The case was part of the moral hysteria over day care and Satanic ritual abuse that occurred in the 80’s and 90’s. Members of the McMartin family ran a preschool in Manhattan Beach, California and were charged with numerous acts of sexual abuse of the children in their care. It was a long, drawn-out case that involved inappropriate interviewing techniques, compromised testimony and some bizarre claims involving flying witches and underground tunnels. In 1990, after six years of criminal trials, all charges were dropped. At that time, it was the longest and most expensive court case in US history.
Wildenstein Divorce Settlement: $2.5 billion
In another civil case, individual wealth fueled the most expensive divorce settlement in recent years. In 1999, art dealer and businessman Alec Wildenstein and New York socialite Jocelyn Wildenstein divorced. The Wildensteins had built up an enormous family empire, including what is believed to be the world’s largest private collection of major artworks. In the divorce settlement, Jocelyn was entitled to $2.5 billion of that family fortune, in addition to a $100 million annuity to be paid for 13 years.
“The Smartphone Patent Wars” – Apple v. Samsung: $40 billion
International patent law is complex, and patent disputes can be extremely expensive. With the advent of new technology, these disputes occur more and more frequently, as demonstrated by the “Smartphone Patent Wars.” In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in the first of a series of ongoing patent infringement suits. These disputes involve many years of litigation and numerous counterclaims in various courts. In 2012, Apple was awarded $1 billion in damages for Samsung’s infringement. Cases are ongoing and continue to be very costly.
The BP Oil Spill: $42 billion
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the oil industry is involved in some of the costliest litigation. The 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. The US Government estimates that a total discharge of 4.9 million barrels was released into the Gulf of Mexico resulting in disastrous damage to marine wildlife habitats. In addition, 11 people went missing during the explosion and were never found. In 2013, BP pled guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, 2 misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. Then, in 2014, a US district court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the spill due to gross negligence and reckless conduct. BP agreed to pay $18.7 billion in fines — the largest environmental penalty in history. Ultimately, the criminal and civil proceedings cost around $42 billion.
The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA): $206 billion
The Tobacco MSA was entered into during November of 1998, and is the largest settlement in history. The MSA originally took place between the four largest tobacco companies (Philip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard) and the attorneys general of 46 states and 5 territories. The tobacco companies agreed to reduce their marketing and lobbying efforts and to make annual payments to the settling states in perpetuity. The payments are made in an effort to compensate the states for the medical costs of caring for persons with tobacco-related illnesses. The money also funds the anti-smoking advocacy group, the American Legacy Foundation. The original participating manufacturers agreed to pay, at a minimum, the incredible sum of $206 billion in the first 25 years of the settlement.
While these cases put average legal fees into perspective, they are demonstrative of the ever-escalating expenses of litigation — especially on a national scale. Even corporate clients are feeling the financial strain, and third parties increasingly fund litigation disputes. In other cases, litigation is avoided altogether by seeking out dispute resolution or mediation alternatives. Regardless, it is safe to say that as a leading capitalist economy, the US will continue to experience expensive court cases, and in the coming decades this list may be surpassed.
Our world seems to have surrendered to photo-documentation of nearly every second of every day. People walk around with cameras in their pockets ready to record at any moment. Our camera-happy culture has gone so far as to raise the question: Is any experience real if you did not take a photo?
In the courtroom, however, cameras are a contentious topic. On one hand, freedom of information seems to demand that video recordings of court proceedings be permitted and made available to the public. On the other hand, many judicial legislators fear that cameras in the courtroom could intimidate witnesses and violate necessary privacies. Some even feel that cameras in the courtroom make a mockery of the judicial system and perpetuate false information. So are cameras allowed in the courtroom, and, if so, when?
State Courts
In 1981, the U.S. Supreme court held that states may adopt their own rules regarding cameras in their courts, and the resulting policies they’ve implemented vary widely. In some states, visual and audio recordings are permitted in all public court proceedings, while in others, video coverage is only permitted in appellate courts.
Prior to 1996, Indiana was one of three states that prohibited the use of cameras in all court proceedings. In 1996, the Indiana Supreme Court implemented a program to study the use of cameras in the courtroom. The Indiana Court of Appeals participated in this program and allowed media coverage of oral arguments held before the three-judge panels. Now, the media may cover Supreme Court arguments pending acceptance of a formal request to the judicial panel hearing the case. At the trial court level, cameras and recorders are prohibited during all proceedings. However, the Supreme Court can give special permission for video-coverage if it is deemed necessary.
Federal Courts
In general, cameras are not permitted in federal court trials, although audio recordings of the week’s oral arguments are typically released. Over the years, there have been several legislative efforts to allow cameras in federal trial and appellate courts, but none have ever passed. In 2010, the Judicial Conference implemented a three-year pilot project to study the effects of camera usage in courtrooms. The program began in 2011 and lasted until 2015, with fourteen participating courts. It was limited to civil cases with the consent of presiding judges and participating parties. The recordings were made public on the U.S. Courts website. At the end of the program, the Committee on Court Administration and Casement Management decided not to recommend any changes to the Conference policy. The participating districts were permitted to continue with the study to gather longer-term data.
The current policy for camera usage in the federal trial courts is sustained. According to the U.S. Courts website:
“A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and in adjacent areas during investitive, naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only:
When broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing in the courtroom or adjacent areas is permitted, a judge should ensure that it is done in a manner that will:
As study on the effects of camera usage in court proceedings continues, these policies may change. However, as of right now, camera usage is limited. As our world becomes increasingly photo-documented, the courtroom remains removed from this cultural shift.
True crime dramas have become a recent cultural addiction. With the release of media like the popular documentary Making of a Murderer and the podcast Serial, everyone seems eager to express theories about real court cases. This phenomenon raises some questions about public records. Without public access to court records, these cases could not have been so widely discussed and dissected. As these dramas demonstrate, public access to and dissemination of court information has the potential to affect perceptions of court cases and affect change regarding those cases—even years later. In light of this, let’s examine what exactly is made public and why.
Freedom of Information
Both the federal and state governments determine public access to government files such as court records. At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act, signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, generally protects the right of any person to request access to federal agency records or information. There are a few exemptions and special law enforcement exclusions to this, such as national security information or trade secrets.
State laws concerning freedom of information vary. The Indiana Access to Public Records is a series of laws designed to guarantee public access to any information created, maintained or filed by government agencies. Exemptions under Indiana law are very similar to federal exemptions.
Court Records
Court records fall under the umbrella of information that is generally available for public inspection. However, some records and record information cannot be disclosed because they are deemed confidential either by law or by court rule. The following are examples of confidential court record information:
Excluding confidential records, public court records are available to anyone and may be used for news publications, academic research and non-profit organizations. They may not, however be used for commercial purposes of any nature. Requests can be made through mail, online or in person, and records may be copied for a small fee.
Court Proceedings
The public has generally been allowed access to courtrooms in addition to court records. Anyone who wants to watch a trial or hearing can do so under the First Amendment and the common law, as long as a seat is available. There are, however, several exceptions to this. Traditionally, juvenile courts are closed to the public. In addition, the right of access to any court proceedings may be denied at the discretion of the courts. If the courts feel that interest in confidentiality outweighs public interest in access, they may deny public access to a trial. The courts must consider government interests as well as privacy interests of witnesses and jurors for any given case using “experience and logic.”
Due to freedom of information and access, public citizens are granted insight to the court system and other government agencies. Public opinion and interest may at times impact the privacy and impartiality of court proceedings and court records, however, these freedoms are incredibly valuable. Public access to records and proceedings holds the courts accountable by ensuring any errors, oversights, and injustices are perfectly transparent. Ultimately, this freedom helps elevate our justice system to the highest standard of accuracy and integrity.
