<< If Barack Obama Had a Son... | Main | Campaigning on a Platform of Legalizing Pot >>


Why does the public not have a transcript of the Zimmerman trial?

| 2 Comments
For better or worse, the trial of George Zimmerman is among the most talked-about and written-about of modern times.  (Mostly worse, IMHO.)  Shouldn't the general public have a transcript of this high profile public event, so that discussion can cite exactly what the testimony was?

Surprisingly, there isn't one available to the public.
Now, in a routine criminal case, the primary reason for the transcript is appellate review.  When a trial ends in acquittal, from which there is no appeal, it is not unusual for the reporter's notes to just be filed away and never transcribed.

But this is not a routine case.  It is a case of powerful public interest.  Shouldn't the public have a transcript?

The Florida court district has a web page with information on this case, a public service courts are often providing on high-profile cases these days.  Lots of stuff there, but no transcript.

At the bottom of the page is a contact for more information, Michelle Kennedy, and even a "mailto" link.  I emailed Ms. Kennedy.  She responded promptly and even went the extra mile to dig a little further.  The bottom line from Associated Court Reporters is "there is not a transcript available to the public."  Not the same thing, apparently, as "there is no transcript, period."  If there is a transcript of a public proceeding of great public interest, shouldn't it be a public record available to all?

[Update:  I have received further information that the transcript was not made, so the inference I drew from the wording of the response, above, appears to be incorrect.  That makes part of the original post irrelevant, so I have deleted it.  It would be good if some organization with deeper pockets than ours would order a transcript.]

There are, of course, video pieces of testimony all over the Internet.  Still, it would be good to have one complete, official transcription of the whole trial.  A transcript would be searchable.  You can find what you want more quickly and more easily.  Witnesses in recordings are sometimes hard to understand.  (How many songs have you heard on the radio 1000 times but not understood or misunderstood the lyrics?)  I think a valuable piece of information is missing from the public record.

2 Comments

This is only tangentially on topic, but I must take issue with a couple of the misunderstood song lyrics in the list you have hyperlinked.

No. 38, Elton John's "Rocket Man," is clearly "burning down the trees on every lawn," not "burning up his shoes with aerosol."

And No. 48, Pearl Jam's "Jeremy," is quite obviously "Jeremy's smokin' hash today!", not "They're on me Spalding! Cassaday!"

But your point is otherwise well taken.

And all this time, I thought it was "burnin' up in Tucson, Arizone." Thanks for straightening me out.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives