Legal Question - Public Records - Why Are Transcripts Not Free to View?

[BBatesokc]

Question I thought some lawyer types here might be able to answer....

A jury trial has been completed in Okla. County. Intent to appeal has been filed.

The transcript has been completed and shows delivered on both the CF docket and the appeal docket. The transcript was paid for by the public (public defender is doing the appeal). So, why is the transcript not available for review by the public at no charge?

I get that the transcriptionist must get paid. She was when the original was ordered by OIDS and tax payers paid it.

I just called to view the transcript and was told I had to purchase it at $1 a page. That's not a paper or copying fee - they would provide as a .pdf on a DVD.

So, each time a member of the public wants this already paid for transcript they expect to get paid $4,600.

Am I missing something here?

I assumed once the transcript was ordered and paid for originally and turned over to the state, that it is state (the people's) property.

I've never tried to get transcripts so this is new territory.

Somebody please enlighten me......

[kevinpate]

Court reporting lobby ... perhaps second only to the bail bond folk lobby.

It's not really any more complicated than that.

[BBatesokc]

I get the protect your own thing that is obviously going on - I just wonder how that rubs against the law (or if it even does).

There was a time when the police dept. was way overcharging for records until atty. Gassaway took issue with it.

I just wondered if anyone knew what the intent of the law is.

[SoonerDave]

I get the protect your own thing that is obviously going on - I just wonder how that rubs against the law (or if it even does).

There was a time when the police dept. was way overcharging for records until atty. Gassaway took issue with it.

I just wondered if anyone knew what the intent of the law is.

I think you may have just discovered it.....

[Urbanized]

Just a question from a non-lawyering type: is the version that was furnished to the parties a clean version, but if a member of the public requests a copy it must first be scanned by a person to see if any information must be redacted before releasing it? If someone has to read every page and make appropriate redactions the charge seems reasonable.

[BBatesokc]

Just a question from a non-lawyering type: is the version that was furnished to the parties a clean version, but if a member of the public requests a copy it must first be scanned by a person to see if any information must be redacted before releasing it? If someone has to read every page and make appropriate redactions the charge seems reasonable.

There are no redactions - same as with any document you request from the Court Clerk's office. Also, a digital version is made upon completion of transcript.

So, the state is not out anything additional and why should the transcriptionist get to continue making money off a document that belongs to the public?

[TexanOkie]

In my experience, you can look at most contents of court files (transcripts, judgments, filed briefs, etc.) for free in person at the court clerk's office or records office--they only charge if you want copies that you can take with you. I primarily do transactional work, though, so my experience is more limited than other lawyers who regularly go back through court records.

[yukong]

Kevin Pate hit the nail on the head with his post. Court Reporter lobby. As a trial attorney, if I want a transcript of a hearing, I have to buy it also. Even if it is for an indigent client and I am successful at getting the court to order it provided at public expense...the most I as a lawyer can do is check it out. But I have to return it. And I'm not supposed to copy it. If I want a copy to keep, I am supposed to pay the court reporter for a copy. I have run afoul of that "rule" a couple of times and have angered a court reporter or two when we made copies of ones we have checked out. Not supposed to do it. Most lawyers do...but not supposed to.

When transcripts are done for appeals...the same rule applies. Now, anyone should be able to go to the court clerk's office to view the file and the transcript...but if you want a copy...you have to pay. Regardless of the format. And the copying of the transcript is paid over to the court reporter I believe.

Here is what is interesting....court reporters are the only state employees that I know of that can use state property, office, time and supplies for a private business. By that I mean...a court employed court reporter is a state employee. If that reporter records a hearing in his/her capacity as a court reporter...and a party wants a copy of the transcript of that hearing...the court reporter can use state provided paper, copiers, computers and time to prepare that transcript, and then the payment goes to the reporter, not the state. Now granted, most reporters provide their own stenograph machines and laptops but they don't provide the copiers, the audio recorders or the paper that goes in their machines. And if an indigent defendant wants a copy of the transcript and the court orders it paid for at state expense...the court reporter gets paid by the state for that transcript. And he/she will most likely prepare it while at work...while being paid by the state to be present at work. So in some sense...it's double dipping. Now I don't begrudge them that ability...in fact I have to tip my cap and say "bravo" on pulling that off.

[kevinpate]

This may be of interest. It's a NewsOK article from 2013.

http://newsok.com/article/3857558