Editorial
Front Page - Friday, April 16, 2010
I Swear...
Miss transcriptions
Vic Fleming
There are times when the person who is charged with transcribing something does the best that he or she can do, but, nevertheless, comes up with something different from what was in fact being said.
In court recently, I was presented with a transcript of a telephone interview with a witness who had been called by a claims adjuster for an insurance company. The witness made several references to seeing something happen “on Stagecoach,” Stage-coach being the name of the road on which the wreck that the witness witnessed had occurred.
Perhaps it was not the best connection – perhaps the witness spoke too fast. In any event, this is what was entered into the computer and then printed out for me to read:
“I seen this guy driving down space goat, and he had the green light ….”
I was reminded of several instances of mistranscriptions that I’d either learned of or been a party to over the years.
When I was editing a book of sermons in 1992, I came across a reference to “Paul’s letter to the Philippines.”
When I was in private practice, I recall a legal secretary presenting me with a letter that I had dictated, “A Rule of Thum in such cases is ….” In defense of my assistant, I had just finished handling two cases involving the Rule Against Perpetuities.”
In another instance, I recall dictating a request to someone for “file-marked copies,” only to read in my letter later that I wanted “five more copies of the document.”
In a deposition that was sent to me, the deponent had admitted cheating on his wife. And then appears this question: “At what point in time did this adulterous relationship began between you and your power mower?”
Another deposition excerpt that has always puzzled me a tad, though has always entertained me, is this statement from someone who was being questioned about his use of alcoholic beverages: “I’ve been sober for three years now. But before that I drank fluently.”
For years I saved a letter from one lawyer to another (who knows? One of them might have been me) in which the following sentence appeared: “This is the second time that you have referred to this case as one that should be settled for the cost of the fence.” The case, of course, had nothing to do with walls or fences.
I recall a letter from an opposing counsel, addressed to the judge, with a copy to me, in which he began, “I would like to take this opportunity to capsize my client’s case.” Recalling the case, I wish his case had capsized.
But perhaps the most memorable instance of a typographical miscue came in 1990. I had sent a letter to opposing counsel that accused his clients of having “entered the premises of my client’s place of business and defiantly removed certain company records that they were not entitled to remove.”
The reply from the other lawyer came over the fax machine, suggesting perhaps that he and his assistant were rushing about. But the letter I received read, “… my clients are entitled to other documents, as certain personal items, that remain on the penises and want to know when they can pick them up.”
In looking back on that last item, I actually wish today that I had not called it to the attention of my adversary.
But I did. And we had a good laugh over it.
Vic Fleming is a district court judge in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he also teaches at the William H. Bowen School of Law. Contact him at judgevic@comcast.net.
|
|