STENOGRAPHERS WILL REMAIN IN COURTS.

Byline: Associated Press 

Stenographers who record Superior Court hearings in California have won a legal battle against a judicial agency that wanted to replace many of them with tape recorders.

A makeshift state Supreme Court denied review Tuesday of an appellate ruling that state law requires Superior Courts to use stenographers to make official transcripts.

Review had been sought by the state Judicial Council, a judge-dominated body chaired by Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas. Lucas and three of his six Supreme Court colleagues disqualified themselves from the high court's consideration of the case, leaving the other three justices and a randomly chosen appeals court presiding justice, J. Clinton Peterson, to sign Tuesday's order.

The Judicial Council has sought for 20 years to get legislative authority for electronic recording of court proceedings as a money-saving measure. The Legislature has repeatedly refused, heeding the arguments of a strong lobby representing court reporters, as the stenographers are called.

Lawmakers have allowed tape recordings of Municipal Court hearings, when stenographers are unavailable, and of appellate court and Supreme Court proceedings. They approved a pilot project to allow tape recording of hearings in 75 Superior Courts around the state from 1986 through 1993 but refused to expand it statewide at the end of 1993.

The Judicial Council then adopted a statewide rule declaring that Superior Court judges could use tape recorders when court reporters were unavailable or a court couldn't afford to pay them.

The rule would have barred tape recorders in criminal cases if either side objected. But financially squeezed counties would have gained broad authority to eliminate stenographers.

However, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled last October that the council's rule violated state law.

The law does not expressly ban tape recording but shows an intent to require Superior Courts to use reporters to make official transcripts, the court said. The ruling said the Judicial Council apparently felt the need to ask the Legislature to change the law and allow electronic recording.

"By its conduct, the Judicial Council impliedly admitted that legislative authorization is needed before electronic recording of Superior Court proceedings may be made," said Justice Timothy Reardon in the 3-0 ruling.

That ruling now becomes final, and binding on trial courts statewide, with the Supreme Court's refusal to review the case.

A 1991 Judicial Council study, disputed by court reporters, said tape recorders saved each court $28,000 a year. The council's staff director, William Vickrey, said the court ruling would worsen the financial plight of trial courts around the state.

"If this means court reporters are the first costs that must be fully paid, we will have $8 million in increased costs," he said.

Los Angeles County officials told the court they would have to spend $3.9 million to replace recorders that have been installed in more than 70 of the county's courtrooms.

But lawyers for the court reporters said human reporters are probably cheaper than machines in the long run, take less time than tapes when testimony must be reread in court, and are more easily adaptable to computers.

"In the end, taxpayers are going to save a lot of money because they didn't invest in audio equipment that's going to be obsolete," said Scott Kronland, a lawyer for the reporters.