Punctuating a Run-On Exchange Without Changing Meaning
You are preparing a deposition transcript in an Oklahoma workers' compensation case. The audio contains this exchange: Q. What did you tell Mr. Reed? A. I told him I ain't signing nothing and he said well you can leave then. Q. Did he say, 'You can leave then'? A. No he said you can leave then but I didn't. Later, the witness says: 'The check was signed by Mr. Bell, the treasurer, and notarized.' The audio shows a pause after 'Bell' and another after 'treasurer.' Opposing counsel asks you to 'add quotation marks where they belong and clean up the run-on sentence.' The witness's dialect is nonstandard, but the meaning matters for the comp claim.
1. Punctuate the first exchange as it should appear, and explain the choices.
Read the worked answer
A defensible rendering is:
Q. What did you tell Mr. Reed? A. I told him I ain't signing nothing, and he said, 'Well, you can leave then.' Q. Did he say, 'You can leave then'? A. No, he said, 'You can leave then,' but I didn't.
The reasoning: quotation marks mark the witness's report of direct speech, not the reporter's approval of the grammar. A comma before 'and' separates the two independent clauses and reflects the natural pause. 'Well' is an interjection and takes a comma. In the answer 'No, he said...', the comma after 'No' reflects the pause and prevents the reader from misreading 'No he said' as a single phrase. I would not change 'ain't' to 'isn't' or 'nothing' to 'anything,' because those are the witness's words. I would not add quotation marks around the witness's own statement 'I ain't signing nothing' unless the witness is quoting someone else; the first answer is indirect speech introduced by 'I told him.'
2. How should the sentence about Mr. Bell be punctuated given the pauses?
Read the worked answer
The sentence should be punctuated according to meaning, with the pauses as supporting evidence, not as the sole test. If Mr. Bell is the only treasurer in context, 'the treasurer' is a nonrestrictive appositive and takes commas: 'The check was signed by Mr. Bell, the treasurer, and notarized.' That reading says Mr. Bell, who is the treasurer, signed the check, and the check was notarized. If there are multiple treasurers and the phrase identifies which one, it is restrictive and takes no commas: 'The check was signed by Mr. Bell the treasurer and notarized.' The audio pauses after 'Bell' and after 'treasurer,' which supports the nonrestrictive reading, but the reporter should also consider the preceding testimony. If the context is genuinely ambiguous, I should not invent clarity; I may retain the punctuation that best matches the spoken pauses and flag the ambiguity for counsel, or use a bracketed note rather than silently choose a meaning that affects liability.
3. What is the limit of 'cleaning up' the witness's grammar?
Read the worked answer
The limit is that punctuation and paragraphing may improve readability, but they may not change the words, word order, or dialect. A court reporter may add commas, periods, question marks, and quotation marks to reflect spoken pauses and grammatical structure. The reporter may not convert 'ain't' to 'isn't,' delete a double negative, add a word the witness did not say, or turn a run-on into a polished sentence that suggests the witness spoke more formally than he did. If the witness says 'I told him I ain't signing nothing,' the transcript should preserve that. If a written exhibit contains an error, '[sic]' may be appropriate; it is not appropriate for ordinary spoken dialect. The test is whether the change affects meaning, credibility, or the reader's sense of the testimony. When counsel asks for 'cleanup,' I should explain that I will punctuate for clarity but will not alter the verbatim record.