The Unintelligible Witness and the Court's Directive
During a personal injury trial, the plaintiff's treating physician testifies via video deposition. The audio quality is poor, and the witness speaks with a heavy accent and frequently uses medical jargon. The judge instructs you, the court reporter, to 'do your best' and to interrupt only if absolutely necessary to clarify. The witness is describing the mechanism of injury and says: 'The patient sustained a [unintelligible] tear of the medial meniscus, likely due to a [unintelligible] force applied to the knee joint.' The attorney does not ask for clarification. You are unsure of two words. The first sounds like 'bucket-handle' or 'bucket-handel'; the second sounds like 'valgus' or 'varus'. You have no medical dictionary at your desk. The trial must proceed without delay.
1. What should you do in the transcript regarding the two unintelligible words?
Read the worked answer
According to court reporting ethics and procedures, when a word is unintelligible and cannot be clarified, the reporter must indicate the unintelligibility in the transcript rather than guess. The standard practice is to use a placeholder such as '(unintelligible)' or '(inaudible)' and, if possible, note the time stamp or reel/segment number for later verification. Since the judge instructed to interrupt only if absolutely necessary, and the attorney did not seek clarification, you should not interrupt. You should mark the words as unintelligible and, after the proceeding, attempt to verify using available resources (e.g., medical dictionary, recording) and, if verified, correct the transcript with a notation. If not verified, leave as unintelligible. Guessing would violate accuracy and could mislead the court.
2. What are the ethical considerations if you later verify one word but not the other?
Read the worked answer
If you verify one word (e.g., 'bucket-handle' from a medical dictionary or by consulting a reliable source), you may correct that word in the transcript. However, you must not alter the official record without following proper procedures: typically, you would note the correction in a separate errata sheet or by marking the change with a notation indicating the correction and the basis. For the unverified word, you must leave it as unintelligible. You should not substitute a similar-sounding word even if it seems plausible. The ethical principles of accuracy and impartiality require that the transcript reflect the proceedings as they occurred, and any corrections must be transparent. Additionally, you should inform the judge or the parties of the correction if required by local rules.