California high court requires lower courts to provide official record in indigent cases

The decision leans heavily on a 2018 decision by the state Supreme Court, which held that a valid method to create a record must be available to indigent litigants when requested.SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — The California Supreme Court directed county Superior Courts on Monday to provide indigent people with a verbatim record of court proceedings, even if a court reporter isn’t available.The decision stems from a 2018 ruling from the state high court in Jameson v. Desta, which held that a valid method to create a record must be available to indigent litigants when requested. However, groups like the Family Violence Appellate Project and Bay Area Legal Aid argued that didn’t occur in practice.Writing for the high court, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero noted indigent litigants would find no court reporter was available. That led to the postponement of a hearing or that person agreeing to proceed without an official record.“Faced with these consequences, the attorney reports that indigent litigants ‘often’ choose to go forward without a court reporter,” Guerrero wrote.That’s one reason the Supreme Court in its decision ordered county Superior Courts to fulfill their duty and provide equal access to justice.That equal access — a proper record of court proceedings — doesn’t have to come in the form of an official court reporter. In the writ, the high court states Superior Courts should allow electronic recordings if no court reporter is available. Those lower courts also can’t rely on a prohibition on electronic recordings in the law.That law, Section 69957, allows electronic recordings in some cases, like limited civil or misdemeanors, though they’re prohibited in other kinds of cases.The groups argued courts have the power to imply an exception to the prohibition if a court reporter is unavailable and the litigant is indigent. They pointed to the doctrine in Jamesonand larger constitutional issues of due process and equal protection.“Although section 69957 contains a broad prohibition on the use of electronic recording in most civil cases, it does not specifically forbid using such recording where necessary to ensure an indigent litigant has meaningful access to justice,” Guerrero wrote. “Thus, like many other statutes that ‘do not themselves contain an exception for needy litigants’ …, courts can and should imply an exception to section 69957 where reasonably necessary to provide indigent civil litigants with meaningful access to justice and an official verbatim record.”Some county courts already had allowed electronic recording in some cases. Los Angeles, Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties had issued general orders. San Diego County had not.In 2024, the groups asked the high court for a writ of mandate, challenging those four county court systems and their method of handling verbatim records of civil proceedings. They wanted an order directing counties to allow electronic recordings if a litigant is indigent and no court reporter is available.Guerrero noted the high court asked the lower courts to argue why the groups shouldn’t receive relief. The Superior Courts said they’d let their general orders speak for themselves and didn’t deny the groups’ claims.“They resisted petitioners’ effort to place a new duty on the Superior Courts,” Guerrero wrote. “Instead, they preferred to read petitioners’ request for relief as allowing, but not requiring, courts to use electronic recording to satisfy their duties under Jamesonor other statutes.”Guerrero wrote that the lower courts have a duty that hinges on Jameson to provide a method for an indigent litigant to receive an official record, which includes electronic recordings, if no court reporter is available. They cannot decline this duty.The groups praised the high court’s ruling.“Today’s decision is a major victory in the fight for equal access to justice for all litigants, regardless of financial means,” said Jennafer Dorfman Wagner, director of programs at the Family Violence Appellate Project, in a statement. “We are committed to working with the legal community and the Superior Courts to ensure the court’s ruling is implemented to its fullest.”Brenda Star Adams, litigation director at Bay Area Legal Aid, said in a statement that her group is grateful the high court affirmed the right of equal access to justice for low-income litigants.The Attorney General’s Office filed an amicus brief in the case and argued before the court at its request.“We are pleased with the court’s ruling,” the office said in a statement to Courthouse News. “It is an important step toward ensuring equal access to justice for Californians who cannot afford a private court reporter.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads