Why Transcribing from Electronic Recordings Is Hearsay — and the Stenographic Profession’s Strongest Defense

The Facebook Question That Frames It All

A friend asks: “I have a friend interested in going to court reporting school. Any thoughts on whether that’s a good idea with possibly AI taking over? I want to encourage her but also be honest about the changes.”

It’s a question thousands of students, parents, and professionals are asking as artificial intelligence (AI), automatic speech recognition (ASR), and electronic recording (ER) technologies are marketed as replacements for stenographic reporters. My answer — and the focus of this article — is simple: AI and ER transcripts are hearsay.

Unless a transcript is produced by the person who was physically present, swore an oath, and captured the record verbatim, it is not legally reliable testimony. It is, by definition, an “out-of-court statement” — hearsay. That truth is not just a rhetorical weapon; it is a legal foundation that secures the future of stenography.

---

What Is Hearsay?

Hearsay is defined in the Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 801) and most state evidentiary codes as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Courts are generally skeptical of hearsay because it denies the trier of fact (judge or jury) the ability to evaluate the credibility, demeanor, and accuracy of the person making the statement.

In legal proceedings, hearsay is usually excluded unless it falls under specific exceptions (such as business records, dying declarations, or admissions against interest). The policy reason is clear: the adversarial system depends on live testimony subject to cross-examination.

Now apply that principle to transcripts created from an electronic recording, whether transcribed by a contractor days later or spit out by an AI engine. The words on the page are not the record itself; they are someone else’s interpretation of the record — a hearsay statement.

---

Why an ER Transcript Fits the Hearsay Definition

Consider the process. A judge allows a hearing to be recorded instead of stenographically reported. That recording is later handed to a transcriber or fed into an ASR program. A transcript is produced.

But what is that transcript, legally?

1. It is not the original testimony. The witness’s sworn words were spoken in court, not in the transcriber’s office or inside the AI algorithm.
2. It is an out-of-court interpretation. The transcriber (human or machine) was not present, did not administer the oath, did not observe non-verbal clarifications, did not interrupt for clarification, and did not certify accuracy under penalty of law.
3. It is offered to prove the truth of what was said. When an attorney cites that transcript in a motion, they are asking the court to accept it as if it were the verbatim record.

That combination squarely places the ER transcript in the definition of hearsay: an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter.

---

The Stenographic Reporter’s Unique Role

A certified shorthand reporter is not a passive recorder. They are a sworn officer of the court. When a reporter transcribes proceedings, they:

• Administer oaths to witnesses.
• Interrupt if multiple people speak at once or if words are inaudible.
• Ask for clarification of spellings, technical terms, or indistinct speech.
• Certify the transcript under penalty of perjury as a true and correct record.

That certification transforms the transcript into admissible evidence, not hearsay. Courts rely on the reporter’s presence and oath as a safeguard of reliability.

An AI cannot administer an oath. It cannot stop a mumbling witness and ask for repetition. It cannot distinguish between homophones like “there,” “their,” and “they’re” without context. And crucially, it cannot testify in court that its transcript is true and correct.

---

Accountability and Responsible Charge

In every licensed profession, there is a principle called Responsible Charge. It means that a qualified human being — licensed, sworn, and ethically bound — assumes responsibility for the work product. Architects sign off on blueprints. Doctors sign charts. Attorneys sign pleadings. Court reporters certify transcripts.

That certification is not symbolic. It creates accountability. A court reporter who falsifies, alters, or negligently mishandles the record can be disciplined, fined, lose their license, or even face jail time. The justice system depends on this chain of responsibility: someone must stand behind the record.

AI cannot accept responsible charge.
AI cannot be punished.
AI cannot be fined.
AI cannot be jailed.
AI cannot raise a hand, take an oath, and defend its transcript in open court.

Without responsible charge, an AI/ER transcript is not only hearsay — it is unaccountable hearsay. That lack of responsibility erodes the very foundation of evidentiary reliability.

---

Why This Matters Now

The push for AI and ER in the courts is often framed as a cost-saving measure. Vendors promise that microphones and software can replace expensive human labor. Yet the hidden costs are enormous:

• Challenges to admissibility: If an ER transcript is hearsay, litigants can object to its use. That creates delays, appeals, and mistrials.
• Loss of accountability: No human officer swears responsibility for the transcript. Errors cannot be traced to a certifying professional.
• Access to justice issues: Poor litigants, pro se defendants, and vulnerable parties suffer most when the record is inaccurate or incomplete.

If courts embrace ER/AI without recognizing the hearsay problem, they risk undermining the integrity of the entire justice system.

---

Case Law and Precedent

Several courts have already grappled with the admissibility of ER transcripts. While some jurisdictions tolerate them in limited circumstances, appellate decisions repeatedly stress the superiority of certified stenographic transcripts. Judges often note that recordings are incomplete, distorted, or fail to capture non-verbal cues.

Even when recordings are admitted, they usually require a foundation of authenticity and accuracy. But without a certifying reporter, who lays that foundation? A technician who installed the microphone? A contractor overseas who typed what they thought they heard? An AI engineer? None of those individuals were present when the words were spoken. That gap is fatal under hearsay doctrine.

---

Turning the Argument into a Weapon for the Profession

For years, stenographers have tried to defend their role by pointing to error rates, cost comparisons, or tradition. Those arguments are important, but they are not bulletproof. Vendors counter with claims of “improving accuracy” and “cost efficiency.”

Hearsay is different. It is not a matter of opinion, statistics, or preference. It is black-letter law. If every court reporter begins educating attorneys and judges with one simple truth — “AI/ER transcripts are hearsay” — the profession gains an unassailable defense.

Imagine every objection in court being met with: “Objection, Your Honor. That transcript is hearsay. The transcriber was not present. The only admissible record is the certified stenographic transcript.”

If repeated often enough, this objection becomes doctrine. Attorneys will internalize it. Judges will cite it. And the market for stenographers will stabilize for another century.

---

A Message to Future Students

So, back to the Facebook friend wondering whether to attend court reporting school. The answer is: Yes. Court reporting is not only a secure profession, it is a frontline defense of constitutional rights.

While technology evolves, the legal system remains bound to principles of fairness, confrontation, and reliability. A profession that holds the key to keeping the official record admissible is not going away. In fact, demand for certified stenographers is rising as courts realize the pitfalls of ER.

Students entering the field today are not competing with AI; they are protecting justice from hearsay. That is a mission worth dedicating a career to.

---

Conclusion: Safe for 100 Years

When someone asks if AI will replace court reporters, the answer is not complicated. AI cannot replace us because AI is hearsay.

The only record that stands in court is one taken down verbatim by a live, sworn stenographic reporter. That truth is our weapon, our shield, and our professional identity. If we consistently remind the legal community of this fact, our profession will remain safe — not just today, but for the next hundred years.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

• The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
• Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):