The Tennis Court, Dimensions And Surfaces

August 1, 2010 By Law Library Leave a Comment

Tennis courts are standard in dimension, but vary widely in surface material. Tennis rules dictate the length, width, and placement of the lines on a tennis court. Tennis courts have a variety of surfaces and can be either outdoors or indoors. In this article, we will introduce the basic dimensions and aspects of the tennis courts and discuss the different types of tennis court surfaces.

The rules of tennis dictate that tennis courts be 78 feet long from baseline to baseline. A net, 3 feet high in the middle, divides the court into two equal halves. Tennis courts are 36 feet wide from doubles sideline to doubles sideline, and 27 feet wide from singles sideline to singles sideline.

Unlike the dimensions of a tennis court, the tennis court surface can vary in character. The different surfaces have different characteristics that affect the style of play. Common surfaces for outdoor tennis courts include grass, red clay, green clay, and hard courts. In addition, indoor tennis courts often have hard surfaces or synthetic, carpet-like surfaces.

The very first tennis courts were made of grass. While the number of grass tennis courts has decreased in recent years, some remain, and the world’s most prestigious tennis tournament, The Championships at Wimbledon, is still played on grass tennis courts.

Grass tennis courts are considered a fast surface because the ball moves quickly through the court when it bounces. Typically, the ball stays low and close to the ground. Because of the speed of the court and the unreliability of the bounce, historically players playing on grass tennis courts prefer to volley the ball out of the air whenever possible.

Red clay and green clay are the two types of clay, or slow, court surfaces. Red clay tennis courts are made of natural clay or crushed red brick. The French Open is played on red clay courts. Green clay, the more common type of clay court in the U.S., is made of Har-Tru, a mixture of crushed stone, rubber, and plastics. Clay courts are considered slow because the ball bounces more slowly off the court. Typically, players playing on clay tennis courts prefer to hit balls off the bounce from behind the baseline.

Hard courts, the most common court surface in the U.S., are another fast court surface. Hard courts are made of asphalt or concrete coated with a thin sealer and special paint. Some types of hard courts have more extensive, rubberized coatings. The ball bounces high off hard tennis court surfaces and moves through the court quickly. Because the ball has a reliable bounce and the ball moves quickly off the court, players can employ a variety of tactics. Generally, aggressive play is preferred.

Finally, tennis players also play indoors, especially during the winter, on indoor tennis courts. Indoor tennis court surfaces are made of concrete or a synthetic or plastic material that mimics grass. Indoor tennis courts are generally the fastest tennis court surface of all. At the professional level, hard serves, volleys, and powerful grounds trokes dominate matches on indoor tennis courts.

Filed Under Courts:6 Tagged With Court, Dimensions, Surfaces, Tennis

7 Common Myths About Court Reporting

July 4, 2010 By Law Library Leave a Comment

There’s a lot of misinformation floating around out there about court reporters and the services they provide the legal and business community. This article is designed to help separate myth from fact surround court reporters and the work they provide their clients.

Myth #1: Court reporters are just glorified typists

Fact: Court reporting is one of the most demanding fields in and around the legal profession. Unlike typists or word processors, court reporter must listen to, and translate the human voice with incredible

Myth #2: Technology will replace the court reporter

Fact: One would think that by now computers and video equipment would have rendered the court reporter obsolete. But the fact is, there is no substituting the human element in court reporting. Court reporters can provide essential emphasis on words and phrases and other vital portions of the process.

Myth #3: Court reporters are all women

Fact: The historical image of the courtroom stenographer is that of a dapper-looking woman sitting cross-legged in the court room. But now, the profession is almost equally divided between men and women.

Myth #4: A good court reporter is hard to find

Fact: Although court reporters are always in demand, it is now easier than ever to find a good one thanks to the Internet. Many top court reporting services now use the web to give their clients the power to book court reporters or transcribers with the click of a mouse.

Myth #5: There’s not much else a court report can do except…report

Fact: Now, more than ever, court reporters can provide a wide variety of services not only to law firms but the general business community as well. In addition to court room and deposition transcriptions, court reporters use their speed and accuracy to perform real-time closed captioning for the hearing impaired, transcribe the spoken word in audio and video materials and even give businesses a way to create records of shareholders meetings and other important corporate events.

Myth #6: Most of a court reporters time is spent in the court room

Fact: Like the legal community they serve, a large percentage of the court reporter’s billable time is not spent in front of a judge. Instead, it is much more likely to find a court reporter in a law office working on a deposition. The court reporter’s work on a deposition is crucial, as they create a written record of testimony that can be used as evidence, or to corroborate that witness’ story once they do appear in court.

Myth #7: Court reporters look different than everyone else in the courtroom

Fact: Professional, experienced court reporters always dress and conduct themselves in such a way that represents their clients well. In fact, it should be hard to tell the court report from the attorney in most cases. Court reporters arrive on time and never make themselves the focal point during proceedings. To perform the duties with perfection, and NOT be noticed is essence of their work.

For court reporters, plus a WHOLE lot more, visit www.CourtReporterNet.com. CourtReporterNet.com is the one-stop source for all your Court Reporting, videography and Transcription needs. Powered by innovative technologies, and a professional customer support staff, CourtReporterNet.com is sure to meet your complete satisfaction. The court reporters of CourtReporterNet.com are currently available in New York, California, Florida, Chicago and other areas throughout the United States.

Filed Under Courts:6 Tagged With About, Common, Court, Myths, Reporting

The Differences Between State and Federal Court for Criminal Defendents

June 20, 2010 By Law Library Leave a Comment

When a potential client calls our firm and tells us that they are charged with a criminal offense, one the first things we generally ask them is whether they are charged in state or federal court. There have been several instances where we have represented two individuals at the same time who are charged with similar offenses but one has been charged in federal court and one has been charged in state court. Indeed, this has happened several times where we have simultaneously been representing two individuals charged with drug offenses but one is charged in state court and one is charged in federal court. It also happened very recently where we simultaneously represented a defendant charged with a child pornography offense in state court and also represented a defendant (actually he was the spouse of an FBI agent) charged with a child pornography offense in federal court.

The reason that this is such a concern is that, often, the results for the defendants charged in state court are dramatically different than the results for the defendants charged in federal court. Indeed, it is not unusual for a defendant charged with a drug offense or child pornography offense in state court in Dallas County to be placed on probation and a defendant charged with the same or similar offense in federal court to be sentenced to ten year or more in prison.

Why is this? In state court in Texas, regardless of the offense with which a defendant is charged with, he can be placed on some type of community supervision. For example a defendant can commit murder and be placed on community supervision in state court. On the other hand, federal court sentencing is done under a system of guidelines that score a defendant’s offense and criminal history using a grid system. This grid system can lead to very harsh sentences even for first time offenders. Moreover, most drug offenses in federal court require “mandatory minimum” sentences under the federal, drug statutes. I recall one time many years ago representing a client charged with counterfeiting in federal court who faced a two year sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines and his wife bringing me a newspaper article about a murder defendant in state court being placed on probation and me having to explain to her the unfair differences between state court sentencing and federal court sentencing.

The differences result from being charged in state court versus federal court is not only limited to the ultimate sentences imposed.

First, in many Texas counties, a defendant charged in state court can make a presentation to the grand jury in an attempt to convince the grand jury not to indict him in the first place. Such presentations cannot be made to federal grand juries and it is rare that a federal grand jury will refuse a prosecutor’s request to return an indictment.

Second, often the chances of winning a case at trial or having the case dismissed prior to trial in state court can be significantly higher than in federal court. One reason is that the offenses prosecuted in state court are investigated by local police departments who are not nearly as well trained as federal agents who normally investigate the offenses prosecuted in state court. Consequently, sometimes mistakes are made by the local police officers that can be used to a client’s advantage. Likewise, federal prosecutors tend to be more experienced and have more resources than state prosecutors. Another reason that the chances of winning a case in state court can be significantly higher than in federal court, at least in Dallas County, is that state court juries are selected from Dallas County residents only and tend to be lest prosecutorial oriented. On the other hand, federal juries for the federal court that sits in Dallas (the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas) are chosen from residents of several of the surrounding Texas counties (some over an hour away) including many of the more conservative “law and order” areas. Still another reason that the chances of winning a case in state court can be significantly higher than in federal court is that Texas state law permits the suppression of evidence in more circumstances than federal law.

Third, suppose a defendant receives a ten-year sentence in state court and a different defendant receives a ten-year sentence in federal court. The defendant in state court might be paroled after serving only a couple of years of his sentence. On the other hand, parole has been abolished in the federal system and defendants serve 85 percent of their sentences.

Fourth, in state court, if a defendant enters a plea agreement with the prosecution, he will know exactly the sentence he will receive if the judge accepts the plea and he will often be sentenced on the same day they enter their guilty plea. On the other hand, most plea bargains in federal court require a defendant to plead guilty not knowing the sentence he will ultimately receive and the sentence will not be imposed until two-three months after the defendant enters his guilty plea. A defendant in federal court must rely upon the skill of his defense lawyer to accurately calculate the sentencing guidelines and, even then, the judge might give a harsher sentence than is provided for under the guidelines. Also a defendant in federal court will not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if, at the sentencing held a few months later, the sentence is harsher than his lawyer predicted.

Fifth, because the federal system is a lot more complicated, only a small percentage of criminal lawyers can effectively represent a defendant in federal court. Indeed, as we have explained elsewhere, a defendant charged with a crime in federal court must carefully question his lawyer regarding that lawyer’s experience in federal court and should ask the lawyer to give them a print out from the PACER system as to the number of defendants the lawyer has represented in federal court. Selecting a Criminal Defense Lawyer In any event, given the limited supply of criminal lawyers that can effectively represent a defendant in federal court, legal fees tend to be significantly higher for defendants charged with crimes in federal court.

There might be some advantages to being charged in federal court.

First, while this is a gross generalization, federal judges tend to be smarter than their state court counterparts. State court judges in Texas are elected and anybody with a law license is eligible to run. The President of the United States appoints federal judges for life. Thus, if a defendant has a technical legal argument, a federal judge might better receive it. Likewise, a federal judge does not have to run for reelection and might be less likely to make decisions based on public perception. Still, remember that, when it comes to sentencing, federal judges must give significant weight to the harsh federal sentencing guidelines.

Second, in state court, a defendant is required to post bail to secure their release prior to trial. In federal court, many defendants are released without being required to post bail. On the other hand, in state court bail is set in all cases, whereas, in federal court, if it is determined that a defendant is a danger to the community or a flight risk, bail might not be set at all and a defendant will be detained pending trial.

Generally speaking, a person has no control over whether they are charged in state court or federal court. Many crimes can only be prosecuted in state court (for example, except in limited circumstances or in cases involving federal lands, murders and assaults are only prosecuted in state court). For the most part, the type of offenses that generally overlap are: drug offenses, child pornography offenses, fraud offenses involving banks and embezzlement schemes. Usually it will depend on what agency investigates the case (e.g. the local police as opposed to the FBI, DEA, IRS and alike) as to where the case is brought. Nevertheless, on some rare occasions, if a lawyer gets involved prior to formal charges being brought, that lawyer might be able to influence the forum in which the charge is brought. This is an important reason to retain an attorney as soon as you find out that you are being investigated for a criminal offense.

Filed Under Courts:6 Tagged With Between, Court, Criminal, Defendents, Differences, Federal, State

Inherent Powers of High Courts(quashing of Fir)

June 6, 2010 By Law Library Leave a Comment

 

 

 INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURTS (Quashing of     F.I.R)

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Inherent powers of the High Courts are the powers which are not additional to the powers conferred upon the High Courts. The most important aspect of such power is the Quashing of FIR by the court .

 

Section 482 CrPC talks about the inherent powers of the high courts. This section reproduces section 561-A of the code of 1898 without any change. It does not confer any new powers on the high courts but saves such inherent powers which the court possessed before the enactment of CrPC.

 

Though the jurisdiction exists and is wide in its scope it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in exceptional cases. The section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure(amendment) Act,1923 , as the high courts were unable to render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality was palpable and apparent. The section is a sort of reminder to the high courts that they are not merely courts n law, but also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The inherent power in the high is an inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly administrative and partly judicial . They are  necessarily judicial when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for securing the ends of justice. The expression ‘ends of justice’ is not used to comprise within it any vague or nebulous concept of justice, nor even justice in philosophical sense , but justice according to law, statute law and the common law. Inherent powers are in the nature of etxtraordinary powers available only where no  express power is available to the high courts to do a particular thing , and where the express power does not negativate the existence of such inherent power. The jurisdiction under section 482 is discretionary , the high court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands.

 

 

 

OBJECTIVE:

 

 

To highlight the use of inherent powers by the high courts  under the Code of Criminal Procedure especially  for quashing of FIR or criminal complaints  before the filing of a chargesheet.

 

 

SCOPE :

 

The scope of the report is limited only to the quashing of FIR and highlighting some judgements delivered by the Supreme Court and the high courts in this context.

 

As per the scope of this section is concerned , it has a very wide scope. The inherent powers are only with the high courts and no other court can exercise these powers. The high courts are bound to exercise such powers whenever there is injustice done by the court below. Some of the inherent powers of the high courts are:

 

a)     quashing of  FIR

b)    quashing of complaint

c)     quashing of any order passed by the court below in revision etc.

 

In this report we are mainly concerned with quashing of FIR and criminal complaints.

 

 

 

 

 

MAIN TEXT:

 

 

1.     Section 482 :

 

It reads as follows :

 

“Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

 

The section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1923. The section envisages 3 circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:

 

1.     to give effect to an order under CrPC,



to prevent abuse of the process of the court,
to secure the ends of justice.

 

The jurisdiction of the high court is confined to the courts subordinate to it in the state for which the high court has been constituted. An application under section 482 cannot be entertained by any court other than the high court. The inherent jurisdiction possessed by the high court under this section is not confined to cases pending before it, but extends to all the cases which may come to its notice whether in appeal revision or otherwise. Inherent powers under section 482 can be invoked only in the event when there is no other remedy open to the aggrieved party.

 

 

2. INHERENT JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE HIGH COURTS :

 

The inherent jurisdiction of the high court preserved under this section is vested in it by law within the meaning of article 21 of the constitution . The procedure for invoking the inherent powers may be regulated by rules which may have been or be framed by the high courts. The power to make such rules is conferred on the high court by the constitution. Where the rules were previously framed , they continue in force by virtue of article 372 of the constitution.

 

 

3. HIGH COURT NOT TO FUNCTION AS A COURT OF APPEAL OR REVISION :

 

While exercising powers under section 482 the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. It also would not enter into the appreciation of evidence . Inherent powers are to be very sparingly exercised for compelling reasons, when where there has been any abuse of process of law or any glaring injustice.

 

 

4. NO INHERENT POWERS OF SUBORDINATE COURTS : 

 

Under CrPC , inherent powers are vested only in the high courtsand the courts subordinate to the high courts have no inherent powers. In bindeshwari Prasad singh  v  kali singh , the supreme court held that a magistrate has no inherent power to restore a complaint dismissed in default.

 

 

5. INHERENT POWER NOT TO BE INVOKED IN MATTERS COVERED BY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :   

 

The inherent power of the high court under this section cannot be invoked in regard to matters which are directly covered by specific provisions of CrPC. Eg. the petitioner who has a remedy under s. 397 cannot be permitted to invoke s 482. The powers of high court under this section are indeed very wide . However, they can only be exercised in cases where there is such a palpable want of jurisdiction in the proceedings initiated, as would result in unnecessary harassment and oppression to the accused concerned. The section cannot be invoked to supplant the normal processes and inquiries by a tribunal prescribed in CrPC.

 

 

6. WHETHER A PERSON WHO HAS NOT APPLIED UNDER SECTION 482 CAN BE GIVEN RELIEF :

 

When the matter comes before the high court , it can exercise its power under s.482 irrespective of the consideration as to which of the parties has come before it. The high court can give relief even to the other accused who did not file any petition under this section.

 

When the matter is pending before the supreme court and that court has ordered the session judge to issue non bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioners, the high court cannot exercise its power under this section.

 

 

 

7. WHEN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE
:

 

If an effective alternative remedy is available , the high court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy. The powers of this section are not usually invoked when there is another remedy available.

 

 

8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE :

 

In a proceeding under section 482, the high court will not enter into any finding of facts , particularly when the matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of two courts below.

 

When the high court quashed a criminal complaint on consideration of certain documents produced by the petitioner , it was held by the supreme court that the order of the high court was illegal, as only when the high court comes to a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out , based on the complaint and the documents accompanying it, that the court could quash the complaint.

 

 

 

VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT:

 

 

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the High Courts can quash an FIR against a person if it did not prima facie disclose any offence.

 

A two judge bench said that ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused must be tried and taken to logical conclusions under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the High Courts should be reluctant to interfere into the proceedings at an interlocutory stage.

“However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed”, the bench said. Where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint or the accompanying documents taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged, the person proceeded against in such a frivolous criminal litigation has to be saved, ruled the bench.

 

 

In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ( 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) :

 

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail the provisions of section 482 and the power of the high court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by high courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

 

1. The criminal complaint can be quashed when allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused person.

2. The criminal complaint can be quashed when allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for continuing the proceedings against the accused person.

 

3. The criminal complaint can be quashed when the allegations made in the

complaint and evidence collected in support of the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused person.

 

4. The criminal complaint can be quashed when the complaint is manifestly attended with malafide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused person and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

 

5. The criminal complaint can be quashed when there is an express legal bar under any of the provisions of the CrPC or any other legislation (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of criminal complaint.

 

Thus, if the high court is convinced that the criminal complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence and the continuation of an investigation is not based on sound foundations and would amount to an abuse of power of the police necessitating interference to secure the ends of justice, the high court will exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings.

 

 

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate  (AIR 1998 SC 128) :

 

the Supreme Court of India observed that:

 

“Though the magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charges to be groundless, this does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 482 to have the complaint quashed if the complaint does disclose the commission of a cognizable offence against the accused person. In this case the Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court  refusing to quash the complaint on the ground that alternate remedy was available under the CrPC to the accused person was not proper.”

 

 

 

However it has been held by the Supreme Court of India in Om Prakash Singh v. State of UP  (2004 CrLJ 3567) :

 

That ‘if a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it would not be a sound exercise of discretion to quash the criminal complaint’.

 

 

 

In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 ) :

 

A petition under section 482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by common judgments allowed the petition and quashed the two complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to Supreme Court of India.

 

While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down following principles:

 

1. The high courts should not exercise their inherent powers to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used  sparingly and with abundant caution.

 

2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal

ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed.

Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of

even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.

 

 

3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c
) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.

 

As the nature and scope of civil proceedings are different from a criminal

proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial

transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has

been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The

test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or

not.

 

 

 

View of the High Courts :

 

 

In  Pasupati Banerji v. King (AIR 1950 cal 97)  :

 

The court has observed that

 

“In order to attract the provisions of section 182 of the IPC, it must be established that the person gave information to a public servant which he knew or believed to be false and that he intended thereby to cause the public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. It is not sufficient that the person had reasons to believe it was false or that he did not believe it to be true; what is necessary that the person must have positive knowledge or belief that it was false.”

 

 

In state of maharashtra v mohd yusuf noormohammad and others [1990 CrLJ 2106 (bom)] :

 

The high court held that , in the interest of peace, the right of  an individual to prosecute his complaint may be curtailed by the high court under section 482.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION :

 

So as per the following report we have seen that how the high courts uses its inherent powers and how important it is for the high courts to use these powers. Section 482 has a very wide scope and its really important for the courts to use it properly and wisely. Many a times it has been observed that when there is an issue of money for eg. Any money matter then the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit files an FIR against the other person just to harass him. In such cases it becomes very important for the high courts to quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse of the process of the lower courts.

 

Thus section 482 is very important for acquiring proper justice and to stop the public from filing fictitious complaints just to fulfill there personal grudges.

Filed Under Courts:6 Tagged With Courtsquashing, High, Inherent, Powers

How To Earn A Court Reporter Degree For An Exciting and Rewarding Career

May 23, 2010 By Law Library Leave a Comment

In response to the heightened demand for reporters used in courtrooms and depositions, as well as those who provide the closed captioning seen on TV and other services for the hearing impaired, court reporting certification programs are on the rise.

“Not only are court reporters in very high demand, but they also experience extremely rewarding careers,” explains Patricia Falls, owner of The School of Court Reporting, a leading provider of court reporter degrees based in Marlton, New Jersey.  “The court reporting profession has zero unemployment, and a first-year earning potential of up to $80,000, with the ability to earn even more.”

According to Falls, there are many options for enrolling in court reporter certification programs.  Students can choose day or evening classes, full-time or part time courses and online or onsite learning programs.  Falls shares insider’s tips into earning a court reporter degree for maximum career growth potential.

1. Know Your Learning Style.

How and when you learn best will determine what type of program is right for you.  Do you have the ability to go to school full-time, or does a career limit you to part-time and evenings only?  What about distance learning?  Do you prefer to learn in the classroom, or from the comfort of your own home?

2.  Do Your Homework.

When evaluating schools, make sure to ask about their job placement rates and teaching methodologies.  A credible provider of court reporting certification programs should teach a real-time theory (such as the Phoenix Theory) and hold certifications by the Board of Shorthand Reporting and other relevant institutions.

3.  See The Big Picture.

Look for a court reporter degree program that provides internships and training to support the expanding role of court reporting.  Training in captioning, cyber-conferencing, scoping and transcribing can prove invaluable in a court reporting career.

For more information about court reporting certification programs, please visit the school of court reporting at http://www.theschoolofcourtreporting.com or call 856-988-0800.

Filed Under Courts:6 Tagged With Career, Court, Degree, Earn, Exciting, Reporter, Rewarding