If you say no, I very respectfully ask you to back your answer with a reason (law/court rule/case law) rather than just saying that's always how you see it done. MCR 2.306(C)(2)(a) states: "The testimony must be taken stenographically or recorded by other means in accordance with this sub-rule. The testimony need not be transcribed unless requested by one of the parties." (emphasis added) MCR 2.306(C)(3) appears to require court order or stipulation of the parties to record other than stenographically, however 2.306(C)(3)(d) states: "Sub-rule (C)(3) does not apply to video depositions, which are governed by MCR 2.315."MCR 2.315(A) states: "Depositions authorized under MCR 2.303 and 2.306 may be taken by means of simultaneous audio and visual electronic recording "without leave of the court or stipulation of the parties" (emphasis added) A court reporter COULD always make a transcription later off the video recordings. This is in Michigan.
Not without the consent of all the lawyers in the case. However, I think it would be silly to not have a written transcript to review, and to have pages to enlarge and highlight for the jury.
Generally not, although a videotape of an interview might be admissible as evidence. The reason for the official court reporter or videographer is to provide assurance that the information being presented to the court is the full and unedited version.
Consumers can use this platform to pose legal questions to real lawyers and receive free insights.
Participating legal professionals get the opportunity to speak directly with people who may need their services, as well as enhance their standing in the Lawyers.com community.