[ad_1]
From the opinion Thursday in Williams v. State, by Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Felix, joined by Chief Judge Tavitas and Judge Bradford:
Although “[t]rial records are rarely if ever perfect,” Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 753 N.E.2d 649, 662 (Ind. 2001), the Transcript in this case is far from the best.
The Transcript contains various types of errors. There are numerous typos that change the meaning of the testimony, question, or objection. See, e.g., Tr. Vol. II at 137:18, 144:10, 147:10; Tr. Vol. III at 6:13. In some instances, witnesses’ and trial attorneys’ names are reported incorrectly. Tr. Vol. II at 220:5; Tr. Vol. III at 142:15–20, 143:15, 162:4–5.
At one point in the Transcript, a motion, presumably made by the State, is attributed to the trial court. Tr. Vol. II at 107–08. At another point, an objection, presumably made by Williams, is attributed to the Bailiff. Tr. Vol. II at 177:15. At yet another point, the State’s closing argument is attributed to the trial court. Tr. Vol. III at 228:1.
These errors, among others not described herein, complicated but did not substantially impede our review of Williams’s appeal. Regardless, we remind the Court Reporter that this court relies on transcripts being true and accurate representations of the transcribed proceedings. See Ind. Appellate Rule 28(B) (“The Court Reporter shall certify the Transcript is correct.”); see, e.g., Orr v. State, 277 N.E.3d 1262, No. 25A-CR-1786 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2026) (mem.) (identifying similar errors), trans. denied, 280 N.E.3d 249 (Ind. 2026).
Based upon the types of errors reviewed, it appears that generative artificial intelligence may have assisted with the preparation of this transcript. While AI can improve efficiency and be a productive tool for many professionals, it is incumbent upon those using such systems to proofread and ensure the accuracy of the generated product.
Rob Freund (@RobertFreundLaw) spotted this Thursday, and 404 Media (Samantha Cole) wrote about it.
[ad_2]
Source link
