Communication in the Courtroom
`Technowgy is helping w provide equal access w the law
`
`by Dorothy Smith
`
`T he com-t stenographer's hands
`
`are poised over the keyboard
`as the defense attorney rises
`to make her opening statement. The
`eyes of the spectators, judges, and
`jury follow the attorney as she ap(cid:173)
`proaches the jury box. Her client,
`meanwhile, sits at the defense table
`and intently watches . .. television.
`It's not because of indifference that
`the defendant is staring at a TV
`screen rather than at his lawyer. He
`is deaf and is watching the proceed(cid:173)
`ings of his trial through computerized
`real-time captioning equipment, an
`example of one of the ways technology
`is making the legal system more acces(cid:173)
`sible to hearing impaired people today.
`Because hearing impaired people
`may be in court in a variety of roles,
`including those of witness, defendant,
`plaintiff, juror, attorney, judge, or
`spectator, a variety of communication
`modes may be needed. In some of
`these cases, the court is required to
`provide communication access to th e
`proceedings for the hearing impaired
`person. In many instances, however,
`deaf people have been denied equal
`access to the judicial system through
`a lack of adequate communication
`options available to them .
`As recently as the early 1970s, be(cid:173)
`fore the strengthening of laws requir(cid:173)
`ing the courts to provide hearing
`impaired people with qualified sign
`language interpreters and before
`modern technology entered the
`courtroom, deaf people who had to
`go to court were not able to under(cid:173)
`stand much of the legal proceedings
`going on around them.
`
`Indeed, some convictions in cases
`involving deaf defendants have been
`ove1-turned because the court deter(cid:173)
`mined that the defendants were not
`able to understand the proceedings
`and take an active role in their own
`defense. In the Los Angeles Superior
`Court trial of Michael Hernandez
`Contreras, accused of two counts of
`murder, one attempted murder, and
`two counts of possession of a deadly
`weapon, for example, the court relied
`on modern computerized court
`reporting technology to make certain
`that the defendant was "legally pres(cid:173)
`ent" during this trial, in an attempt
`to prevent the decision from being
`ove1-turned as it had been in an
`earlier conviction on another ch arge.
`For many deaf people who are
`skilled in sign language, the presence
`of a highly trained legal interpreter
`in the courtroom can provide an ef(cid:173)
`fective flow of information, despite
`the rapid pace and legal terminology
`of the trial. Through sign language
`interpreters, or oral interpreters for
`hearing impaired people who are
`skilled at speechreading and prefer
`this mode of communication, deaf
`people can participate more fully in
`cou1-t proceedings.
`Some com-t officials are reluctant
`to use qualified interpreters, how-
`
`Spring 1989
`
`19
`
`Defense attorney Richard Ricks uses an FM
`system as he argues a case before the Su(cid:173)
`perior Court bf the District of Columbia.
`
`Dorothy Smith is ci wl'iter-editor in the
`Scientific Communications Pmgrnm in the
`Gallaudet Research Institu te.
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1025
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`ever, because of funding concerns:
`others cla im that interpreters will
`prove distracting during the proceed(cid:173)
`ings or jury de liberations. And some
`opposing attorneys challenge t he
`competence of t he courtroom inter(cid:173)
`preters in an attempt Lo have t he
`comt 's decisions reversed. For t hese
`reasons, some courtrooms videotape
`the interpreter 's performa nce in case
`q uestions of competence and in(cid:173)
`terpretation arise on appeal.
`However, for hearing impaired peo(cid:173)
`ple who have experienced their hear(cid:173)
`ing loss as adults and who may not
`have developed speechreading or sign
`language skills to a high degree,
`providing an interpreter in the court(cid:173)
`room does not a utomatically ensure
`effective communication. In these
`situations, technology of some kind
`ofte n plays a significant role.
`ln 1982, when Michael A. Chatoff
`became the first deaf attorney to argue
`a case before the United States Su(cid:173)
`preme Cou1t, he was assisted by a com(cid:173)
`puterized t ranscribing machine. The
`event was the first time in its history
`that the Supreme Comt had allowed
`outside electronic devices to be used
`during argument, and in so doing the
`comt opened the door a little w ider
`to more complete access to the legal
`system for hearing impaired people.
`Attorney Chatoff lost his hearing
`during law school a nd had not ac(cid:173)
`quired sufficient speechreading and
`sign language skills at t he time of the
`1982 Supreme Court hearing to bene(cid:173)
`fit from either sign language or oral
`interpreters. In earlier hearings in
`lower comts h e had relied on notes
`taken by an assistant during the
`hearings, but admitted that he had
`missed "about 50 percent " of what
`t he j udges were sayi11g. Chatoff won
`permission from th e Supreme Court
`to use a computerized transcribing
`machine t hat would permit him to
`read and respond to what the justices
`and others said with only a few seconds
`of lag time. Since the 1982 Supreme
`Court argumen t, s uch computerized
`"real-tin1e" captioning systems have
`appeared in comts across t he coun(cid:173)
`t ry, representing the beginn ing of a n
`era of technological advancement in
`the comtroom.
`The computer-aided transcription
`
`(CAT) system requires a specially
`trained court reporter. a standard
`comtroom transcription machil1e, a
`computer, and periph erals such as
`monitors for reading the text of the
`proceedings or writing boards for
`recording responses from hearing im(cid:173)
`paired people whose speech is unin(cid:173)
`telligible. Such rea l-time captionin g
`requires technology capable of gener(cid:173)
`ating accurate text at speeds as high
`as 300 words per minute. and thus
`far only shorthand reporting technol(cid:173)
`ogy can ach ieve such speed , w ith ac(cid:173)
`curacy rates as high as 99 percent
`(one error in eYery 100 words).
`The court reporter generates shott(cid:173)
`hand n otations on the 23-key steno(cid:173)
`graph machine by striking t he
`keyboard as many as four to six times
`each second. The phonetically coded
`notation is t hen electronically trans(cid:173)
`ferred to a computer containing the
`reporter 's dictionary. The dictionary,
`which can be updated by the reporter
`to include proper n ames and termi(cid:173)
`nology specific to each court case,
`translates the phonetic entries into
`t heir English equivalents. The Eng(cid:173)
`lish words are then sent to an output
`device such as a te levision monitor or
`screen. The entire process-from
`spoken word to visible English equiva(cid:173)
`lent-takes about three seconds. This
`process, incidentally, is the same as
`that used to produce real-time captions
`for other live, unscripted, or part ially
`scripted events such as the Emmy
`awards and television news programs.
`Gallaudet played a significant role
`in the 1982 Supreme Court case in(cid:173)
`volving Michael Chatoff. Chatoff
`originally contacted his friend Dr.
`Robe rt Davila , vice president for Pre(cid:173)
`College Programs, to ask if there
`were some way Gallauclet could help
`hiln . Davila contacted Dr. Dona ld
`Torr of what was t hen known as Col(cid:173)
`lege Educa tional Resources, wh o in
`turn got in touch w it h Translation
`Systems lnc. , a Ro ckville, Md ., com(cid:173)
`pany. With minor modifications to an
`existing system, suggested Thrr, it
`might be possible to help Chatoff, if
`the Supre me Court could be con(cid:173)
`vil1ced. Translation Systems Inc. and
`Jacquard Systems, the computer
`manufacturer, agr eed to help. After
`two test runs and a live run using the
`
`20
`
`Gallaudet Today
`
`equipment . th e justices granted their
`permission for its use during t he ac(cid:173)
`t ual argument on March 23, 1982,
`when Chatoff and t he CAT eq uip(cid:173)
`ment made history.
`Deaf brn·~·ers like Chat off arc not
`t he only ones benefit ing fro m such
`technology. A deaf j udge. t he Hon.
`Richa rd S. Brown of t he Court of" Ap(cid:173)
`peals in \\"isconsil1 , Dist rict II , has
`used CAT equipm ent in his court(cid:173)
`room and office since 1983. J udge
`Brown. \\·ho became deaf that same
`~1ea r from surgery, uses the technol(cid:173)
`ogy mainly for telephone conve rsa(cid:173)
`tions and once a month to recei\·e
`oral arguments il1 cou rt.
`Hearing impaired people a re not
`t he only benefi ciaries of this new
`techno logy. Court reporters who have
`purchased CAT equ ipment often use
`it to expedite t he ir preparat ion of
`t ranscripts. ln co urtrooms equipped
`
`A deaf defendant, along with his lawyer,
`reads a transcript generated by real-tim e
`captioning during the court proceedings.
`(Photo reprinted with permission from the
`Mil waukee Journal.)
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1025
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`pie's equal access to legal proceedings
`to an even higher level.
`There are about 40 to 50 products
`on the market today that involve
`speech recognition technology, but
`the usefuln ess of that technology in
`courtrooms varies conside rably. Auto(cid:173)
`matic speech recognition systems
`range from those programmed to
`recognize only a few isolated words
`spoken only by one specific speaker
`to those progra mmed for continuous
`speech that is not speake r(cid:173)
`dependent. Speaker-dependent
`recognition systems can be pro(cid:173)
`grammed to understand " unintelligi(cid:173)
`ble" speech as long as the speaker is
`consistent in the production of the
`sounds, but the time required to pro(cid:173)
`gram the system and train the
`speaker may be prohibitive for use in
`comtroom situations.
`Automatic speech recognition sys(cid:173)
`tems can make errors in several ways,
`including deleting or ignoring cor(cid:173)
`rectly spoken words that match those
`in the computer's vocabulary soft(cid:173)
`ware, and insetting incorrect words
`that were actually caused by back(cid:173)
`ground noises rather than the
`speaker. Some automatic speech
`recognition devices in use today have
`very small vocabularies, too restric(cid:173)
`tive for use in a comtroom, while
`others have highe r than acceptable
`e rror rates. Nevertheless, assuming
`the bugs can be worked out in auto(cid:173)
`matic speech recognition technology,
`in the courtroom of the future it may
`be possible for computers automati(cid:173)
`cally to convert speech into printed
`text as it is spoken.
`Computers, FM systems, and audio
`loops, along with the valuable roles
`played by sign la nguage and oral inter(cid:173)
`prete rs, can provide heating impaired
`people, who have a wide range of
`communication needs, greater access
`to the legal system. o
`
`qualified sign la nguage interpreter
`may be the most efficient means of
`communicating. Each hearing im(cid:173)
`paired person has unique communi(cid:173)
`cation needs, and the most e fficient
`technological suppott for one deaf
`person may prove to be a hindrance
`to another.
`For some hearing impaired people,
`a hearing a id may be a ll th at is
`needed to improve communication;
`for others, especially those with more
`severe hearing losses, additional tech(cid:173)
`nology may be required. An audio
`loop, for example, can be used with
`certain hearing a ids to allow the
`hearing impaired person to pick up
`specially amplified sound. With such
`an induction loop system, the
`speaker talks into a microphone that
`is connected to a n a mplifie1: The am(cid:173)
`plified sound is sent through a cable
`(the loop) placed around the entire
`courtroom or a section of the room.
`Hearing impa ired listeners whose
`hearing aids are equipped with a
`telecoil ("T" switch) and who sit
`within the loop area can pick up the
`amplified speech by turning on the
`"T" switch .
`Another assistive listening device
`used by some hearing impaired people
`in coU1trooms involves a wireless FM
`system in which the hearing person
`wears or holds a sp ecial transmitter
`unit to send speech sounds directly
`to a hearing impaired person who is
`wearing both a receiver on a neck loop
`and a hearing aid with a telecoil. Deaf
`lawyer Richard Ricks, a court-appointed
`defense attorney in the Superior
`Court of the District of Columbia, for
`example, uses such a n FM system
`during lawyer/client confe rences as
`well as i11 the courtroom, wh ere both
`the judge and prosecuting attorney
`wear a microphone transmitter.
`While the technology used in FM
`systems and real-time captioning has
`existed for a number of years, an(cid:173)
`other form of technology, automatic
`speech recognition , is still in its in(cid:173)
`fancy. Automatic speech recognition(cid:173)
`the ability of a specially programmed
`computer to recognize normal con(cid:173)
`versational speech and convert that
`speech into either text or synthetic
`speech- is a technology that may
`someday ra ise hearing impaired peo-
`
`Spring 1989
`
`21
`
`Court reporter Joe Karlovits (right) provides
`real-time captioning for deaf attorney Michael
`Chatoff at a 1982 press conference following
`Chatoff's appearance before the United
`States Supreme Court. Chatoff, the first deaf
`attorney to argue before that court, also used
`real-time captioning in the courtroom.
`(Photo reprinted with permission from the National
`Shorthand Reporter.)
`
`with CAT monitors, the judge or at(cid:173)
`torneys can scroll back through the
`transcript to review something on
`their monitor that was said several
`minutes before without interrupting
`the proceedings. In addition , with
`permission from the judge, jurors can
`access the compute r from the jury
`room to review testimony to help
`them reach a verdict. The machines
`can also be connected to a printer to
`provide an instant transcript of the
`day's proceedings. With additional
`software, attorneys can use the CAT
`equipmen t, connected through a
`modem to their own office com(cid:173)
`puters, to research cases or review
`testimony from previous courtroom
`appearances.
`It is important to note that al(cid:173)
`though such computerized court
`reporting systems may be exactly
`w hat some he aring impaired people
`need to make the activities of the
`courtroom accessible to them , the
`same equipment may be of little or
`no value to a deaf person whose Eng(cid:173)
`lish language skills are not as highly
`developed or who has not had the
`oppo1tunity to become familiar with
`legal terminology and court room
`procedures. Attempting to read the
`unfamiliar legal language during the
`fast pace of courtroom activities may
`a ctua lly inhibit rather than e nhance
`communication , and in such cases a
`
`Ultratec Exhibit 1025
`Ultratec v Sorenson IP Holdings Page 3 of 3
`
`