The Homophone Trap in Testimony
You are transcribing a criminal trial. A witness testifies: "I was standing by the curb when I heard the defendant say he was going to bury the money." Later, the witness says: "The police told me they found the money in a berry patch near the road." The audio is clear. The prosecutor later says: "The defendant's counsel's argument is irrelevant and should be stricken." You are proofreading the transcript before certification. You notice you initially typed "berry" where the witness said "bury" and "bury" where the witness said "berry." You also notice the word "counsel's" appears as "councils" in one place. The transcript is 300 pages.
1. How should you resolve the homophone errors, and what principle governs?
Read the worked answer
You should correct the transcript to match the audio exactly: "bury the money" and "berry patch." The governing principle is verbatim accuracy-the transcript must reflect the witness's actual words, and homophones carry different meanings. "Bury" (to inter or conceal) and "berry" (a fruit) are not interchangeable. The correction should be made during proofreading, before certification, and the final transcript should be checked against the audio. The reasoning is that a homophone error can change the meaning of testimony and mislead the reader. Accuracy, not speed or convenience, controls. If uncertain, the reporter should verify against the audio rather than guess.
2. How should the "councils" error be handled, and what does it illustrate about proofreading?
Read the worked answer
The "councils" error should be corrected to "counsel's" to match the spoken word and the possessive form. This illustrates that proofreading must check spelling, punctuation, and word usage against the audio, not merely rely on spell-check. "Councils" (plural of council) and "counsel's" (possessive of counsel) are distinct in meaning and grammar. The reporter should read the transcript carefully, verify proper names and legal terms, and correct errors before certification. The reasoning is that a certified transcript represents the reporter's work product; errors undermine credibility and can affect the record. Proofreading is a professional duty, not a formality.
3. The prosecutor says the argument "should be stricken." Should the reporter edit or remove the argument from the transcript?
Read the worked answer
No. The reporter records the statement as spoken and does not remove or edit the argument. If the court rules on a motion to strike, the reporter notes the motion and the ruling where they occur. The reporter's role is to preserve the record, not to enforce objections. Removing the argument would create an incomplete record and could mislead a reviewing court. The reasoning is that only the court can strike material, and even then the record typically reflects the motion and ruling rather than erasing the words. Neutrality and completeness govern. The reporter may note the motion to strike if one is made.