The Peril of Courts Owning the Record – Why the Move Away from Stenographic Reporters Is a Dangerous Step Toward Tyranny

The bedrock of any functioning democracy is a transparent, accountable, and impartial judicial system. At the heart of that system lies a critical, often overlooked figure: the stenographic court reporter. These highly trained professionals are not simply typists; they are the living guardians of the verbatim record, ensuring every word uttered in court is captured, preserved, and available for scrutiny. Yet, in recent years, a troubling trend has emerged across the United States: courts are replacing these human safeguards with electronic recording devices, consolidating control of the legal record within the very institutions the record is meant to check.

At first glance, the shift toward electronic recording is often justified as a cost-saving measure. Faced with budget constraints, many jurisdictions have deemed stenographic court reporters expendable, replacing them with microphones and digital recorders. California led the charge, privatizing court reporters in civil cases more than a decade ago. Since then, other states—including Colorado, Texas, Washington, and Florida—have followed suit. Even more concerning, states like Massachusetts and Wisconsin have eliminated stenographic court reporters entirely in favor of electronic recording across all courts, including in high-stakes criminal proceedings.

This transition is not merely a logistical or financial decision. It represents a profound transformation of the very mechanism that safeguards judicial integrity. When courts themselves control the creation, storage, and production of the legal record, a dangerous conflict of interest is created. The record ceases to be an independent, inviolable account of proceedings and instead becomes a tool wielded by the institution it is supposed to hold accountable.

A Conflict of Interest Embedded in the System

The judicial system was never intended to be its own watchdog. By its nature, the court is a party to the legal process—it rules on motions, makes findings of fact, and interprets the law. Allowing it to also control the recording and preservation of the proceedings removes a critical layer of independence. The record of what was said in court is often the only evidence of whether justice was served, whether a judge acted impartially, or whether a defendant’s rights were protected. If the court owns the record, it controls the narrative—and that is the essence of tyranny.

Consider the chilling example of the Darrell Brooks case in Wisconsin. After Brooks was charged with injuring a woman with his vehicle just a week before the Waukesha Christmas parade tragedy, there was no record of his bail hearing. The recordings from the day before, the day after, and the day of his hearing were all conveniently “missing.” Had a stenographic court reporter been present, an independent transcript would have existed, impervious to deletion or manipulation by those who might wish to avoid accountability. Instead, the court—being both the decision-maker and the keeper of the record—was left free to explain away the absence without consequence.

This is not merely a clerical failure. It is a systemic vulnerability. The possibility that a record might be lost, edited, or selectively produced undermines public confidence in the courts and creates the appearance—if not the reality—of corruption. An impartial record cannot exist if it is owned by the same body that has a vested interest in the outcome of the proceedings it documents.

The Importance of Chain of Custody and Accountability

Stenographic court reporters are more than passive observers; they are sworn officers of the court who bear legal and ethical responsibility for the integrity of the record. Every transcript they produce comes with a certification that the reporter personally witnessed, captured, and preserved the proceedings without alteration. Their work involves a meticulous chain of custody that ensures the record has not been tampered with—from the moment the words are spoken to the final production of the transcript.

By contrast, electronic recordings are impersonal and detached. Audio files pass through multiple hands—court clerks, unlicensed transcribers, data storage personnel—each link adding the possibility of error, omission, or manipulation. Often, to save money, these recordings are outsourced to overseas transcription services, where accountability is practically nonexistent. Should a critical error or breach occur, there is no professional licensure, no malpractice insurance, and no regulatory body to hold accountable.

In essence, the shift away from stenographic court reporters dissolves the protective framework that has historically shielded the legal record from bias, negligence, or corruption. It transforms the record from an independently verified document into an institutional artifact, subject to the whims and pressures of the very system it is meant to monitor.

A Decentralized Record Is a Safer Record

Another overlooked danger of centralized, court-controlled electronic records is the security risk inherent in concentrating vast amounts of sensitive data in a single repository. Stenographic court reporters maintain decentralized archives of their notes and transcripts, often preserving them personally for decades. This redundancy acts as a safeguard against catastrophic loss—whether from natural disasters, cyberattacks, or bureaucratic negligence.

When the court system consolidates all records into a central database, it creates an irresistible target for hackers, corrupt insiders, or simple administrative error. Once the data is compromised, it is compromised for everyone. The decentralized nature of stenographic recordkeeping is not an inefficiency; it is a critical security feature that ensures no single point of failure can erase the record of justice.

Real-world cases underscore this point. Individuals exonerated years after conviction have sometimes relied on the personal archives of court reporters who retained their notes long after official records were lost or destroyed. In such instances, the decentralized, independently maintained record was the difference between continued injustice and freedom.

The Slippery Slope Toward Absolute Power

The maxim “absolute power corrupts absolutely” rings especially true in the context of the judiciary controlling its own record. If courts are allowed to own and manage the official record without independent oversight, the potential for abuse is not hypothetical—it is inevitable. The record of proceedings is the raw material from which appeals, complaints, and accountability mechanisms are built. Controlling that material allows the court to influence, obstruct, or erase those mechanisms entirely.

In an era where trust in public institutions is already fragile, further eroding transparency in the judiciary is a perilous path. While technological advancements can and should be used to aid human recordkeepers, they must not replace them. The irreplaceable element of human accountability, professional ethics, and personal responsibility cannot be replicated by machines.

The gradual dismantling of stenographic court reporting is not simply a modernization effort—it is an erosion of one of the last independent safeguards in the judicial process. We must recognize the grave implications of placing the power to create, control, and alter the legal record solely in the hands of the court. To do so is to hand unchecked power to an already powerful institution, removing one of the few remaining checks that ensure fairness and justice.

A Call to Protect the Record

The record of court proceedings is not merely an administrative formality; it is the lifeblood of justice. To entrust its creation and custody to the very institution it holds accountable is to invite the abuse of power, diminish public trust, and imperil the rights of litigants and defendants alike.

We must resist the siren call of short-term cost savings and technological convenience. Instead, we must reaffirm our commitment to an independent, accurate, and impartial record—one safeguarded by trained, licensed, and ethically bound stenographic court reporters. Anything less is not merely a bureaucratic shift; it is the dismantling of a vital pillar of democracy.

Because when the court owns the record, the court owns the truth—and in a system without independent truth, justice itself becomes an illusion.