KS Court Reporter common mistakes
KS Court Reporter · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When transcribing a jury charge read at high speed, the reporter writes the instructions in condensed form and later reconstructs the wording from memory or from a generic template rather than verbatim.
Jury charge delivery is fast, monotone, and often read from a prepared text; candidates assume they can 'clean it up' afterward because the language sounds formulaic, and they underestimate how much of the charge is case-specific (names, counts, verdict forms).
What to do instead
Treat the charge as a verbatim record: use a stenotype brief bank for recurring Kentucky charge phrases, request a copy of the written charge if the court permits, and read back the charge against the written text before certifying. Practice timed dictation of pattern instructions at 180-200 wpm until the phrasing is automatic.
The candidate punctuates and paragraphs testimony by sound, inserting periods at every pause and running multiple speakers together in one paragraph.
Pauses in speech do not map to sentence boundaries, and candidates transcribe in real time without a later editing pass, so they carry spoken rhythm into written form.
What to do instead
Adopt a two-pass workflow: capture verbatim in the writing, then edit for grammar and speaker turns. Apply the rule that each new speaker starts a new paragraph with the speaker identified, and punctuate by grammatical sense, not by breath pauses. Do timed editing drills on unpunctuated testimony excerpts.
The candidate answers a substantive question about Kentucky court structure or procedure (for example, which court hears a particular appeal, or how a matter reaches the Supreme Court) by guessing from general knowledge or from federal practice.
Candidates prepare heavily on transcription mechanics and assume the court-system questions are 'common sense'; federal and television-derived assumptions feel familiar and go unchallenged.
What to do instead
Build a one-page map of Kentucky's court levels and the path of appeals, plus the distinction between the reporter's role and the clerk's or judge's role, and review it weekly. For any procedural question, verify against the Kentucky Constitution and rules rather than memory. Flag genuinely uncertain items for review instead of guessing.
The candidate discusses a case, reads back testimony, or shares a transcript with an outside party (friend, attorney not of record, media) without authorization.
Reporters become familiar with attorneys and staff and treat informal requests as harmless; the pressure to be helpful overrides the confidentiality rule, and candidates underestimate how broadly the duty extends beyond the courtroom.
What to do instead
Adopt a standing script: 'I can only release that through the court or with a written order.' Verify any request against the record and the presiding judge's authorization before responding. Memorize that the transcript is the court's record, not the reporter's property, and that read-back occurs only on the judge's direction.
The candidate submits a transcript with inconsistent page formatting, missing certification language, or an incomplete certificate page, treating formatting as cosmetic.
Candidates focus on the words and rush the closing administrative steps; formatting rules feel like busywork, and the certificate is often left as the last item when time is short.
What to do instead
Use a pre-submission checklist covering page numbering, line numbering, margins, title page, certificate of reporter, and index where required, and run it every time. Draft the certificate from a verified template and confirm the exact certification wording and signature block before delivery. Treat formatting defects as substantive errors because they can affect the record's usability on appeal.
The candidate misspells or confuses legal and medical terms that sound alike, such as 'statute' versus 'statue', 'ileum' versus 'ilium', 'perineal' versus 'peroneal', or 'counsel' versus 'council'.
These errors are inaudible in dictation and spell-check does not catch correctly spelled wrong words; candidates rely on phonetics and on software rather than on meaning.
What to do instead
Keep a personal homophone and look-alike list organized by domain and review it before each assignment. When a term is unfamiliar, confirm the spelling on the record by asking the speaker to spell it or by requesting clarification, and verify anatomical and legal terms against a medical dictionary and the applicable rules. Do contextual proofreading, not just spell-check.
During a deposition, the candidate fails to swear the witness or to state the caption, appearances, and the witness's identity on the record, or allows an off-record discussion to go unrecorded without noting it.
Depositions are less formal than trials, attorneys handle logistics casually, and the reporter follows the room's relaxed tone instead of the required procedure.
What to do instead
Keep a deposition opening checklist: oath administered on the record, case caption, location and date, appearances, witness name and address, and any stipulations. If a discussion goes off the record, note the time and the fact of the break, and confirm on the record when recording resumes. Announce read-backs and any requested changes clearly.
The candidate transcribes an objection colloquy and the court's ruling into the testimony stream without marking it, so the transcript reads as if the witness said the attorneys' words.
Overlapping speech during objections is hard to capture, and candidates keep writing linearly without inserting speaker designations or parentheticals.
What to do instead
Use clear speaker designations and parentheticals for bench conferences and arguments, and identify the court's ruling explicitly. Practice dictation exercises with rapid objection-and-ruling exchanges, and review the transcript afterward to confirm that no attorney statement is attributed to the witness.
The candidate misstates the standard for an objection or the basis for admissibility, for example treating hearsay as automatically inadmissible regardless of any exception or non-hearsay purpose.
Candidates learn evidence terms from television and general reading, where 'objection, hearsay' is treated as a complete argument, and they never study the structure of the rule.
What to do instead
Study the Kentucky Rules of Evidence by structure: relevance, then hearsay and its exemptions and exceptions, then authentication and best evidence. For each objection, be able to state the rule number and the reason. Practice classifying short scenarios into the correct rule category until the framework is reliable.
The candidate uses a generic 'cleaned up' style that silently corrects grammar, drops repetitions, and paraphrases unclear answers, producing a transcript that reads smoothly but is not verbatim.
Editing feels like improving quality, and candidates confuse readability with accuracy; they also fear that verbatim repetition looks unprofessional.
What to do instead
Follow the verbatim standard: record what was said, including repetitions and grammatical errors, and reserve brackets or parentheticals for genuinely inaudible or non-verbal material. Distinguish clearly between what was said and what was meant, and never substitute your own wording. Review sample transcripts against audio to confirm that no words were silently removed.