deposition under oath

[firstime 0]

I recently had to give a deposition under oath (at an
attorneys office) which was recorded via stenographer
Do I also have the right to tape record this deposition?? I just saw this on TV.. real or just
hollywood???

[rwieder 0]

Quote

Do I also have the right to tape record this deposition?? I just saw this on TV.. real or just
hollywood???

You have a right to a complete copy of the deposition. Hopefully, depending on how severe the topic was you had a lawyer present. If the people that deposed you are straight, they will provide you with a complete copy of your deposition without your request.

efs4ever could offer more advice on this if you ask nicely.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[TheAnvil 0]

I've had to do that before. I didn't think it was too major. I'm sure if you asked the attorney, he or she would provide you a copy. Nightingale would probably know off the top of her head.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Billy 0]

I have a buddy who get's paid nice $$ to video depositions...

Natural Born FlyerZ.com

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do I also have the right to tape record this deposition??

Interesting question. I don't see why not, although the deposition transcript is what everyone will go off of.

Look, the deposition transcript is there. It is what it is and says what it says. If there's anythign fishy then the stenographer is also a witness if necessary. What are you worried about, anyway? Every word is there and is on it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[legalart 0]

Your question confuses me. Do you mean "did" you have a right to record the deposition? The answer is yes in California and most jurisdictions.

Obviously, once the deposition is over and transcribed by the reporter, what you could or could not have done doesn't matter.

The reporter signs the transcript and swears that what is contained therein is what she/he heard and recorded during the deposition.

[skinnyshrek 0]

u have the right to a copy however, they will charge you for a copy. I recently did one also. 350 dollars for a copy of the statement

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[demoss99 0]

In many jurisdictions the attorney taking the deposition will ask the witness being deposed if they want to "read and sign." This means the witness has a right to read the deposition transcript and make any necessary corrections, additions etc... before signing off as their true and final copy of their statement. This right to read and sign can be waived by the witness.

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

[NlghtJumper 0]

Good to know... something I will definatly keep in mind if I ever get put in that situation!

A man will do anything for the right woman,
and when that woman destroys him,
that man will become a hunk of meat with the common sense of a rodeo clown! ~ Christopher Titus

[skinnyshrek 0]

Quote

In many jurisdictions the attorney taking the deposition will ask the witness being deposed if they want to "read and sign." This means the witness has a right to read the deposition transcript and make any necessary corrections, additions etc... before signing off as their true and final copy of their statement. This right to read and sign can be waived by the witness.

True, but if you want copies done. Maybe it was my attorney. But they wanted money especially for the copies of the video. Even though i paid for them in the beginning.

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Look, the deposition transcript is there. It is what it is and says what it says. If there's anythign fishy then the stenographer is also a witness if necessary. What are you worried about, anyway? Every word is there and is on it.

Um, but in my limited experience with this, I've seen the transcript come out with things that are a bit different from what was intended from your spoken words, because of misinterpretations or misunderstandings by the stenographer. She does not automatically get everything correct.

I think you should ask the lawyer for a copy and check it out. If there is anything you disagree with, there is a procedure to file corrections.

As a result of that deposition, you may end up getting called into court to testify as a witness before a jury.

And at that point, you don't want some asshole lawyer doing this to you:

Lawyer: "Isn't it true that you said X?"
You: "No, I never said that."
Lawyer: "It says right here in this transcript (holding papers up for the jury to see) that you said X! So, are you lying now? Or were you lying then?"

Don't let that happen...

[lawrocket 3]

The usual way of doing things, at least here in Cali,, is that the deponent will have a chance to review the deposition and make any changes necessary before signing the original. That way, the deponent can ensure that everything is correct.

However, these changes CAN be commented upon by counsel at time of trial. That means that if you review your depo and you changed, "Yeah, I saw the light was red and the driver of the green car ran it and collided with the red car" to "yeah, I saw the light was green and the driver of the green car went through and the driver of the red car, who had a red light, ran the red light an collided with the green car" it's a pretty substantial change. That can certainly be commented upon.

If, on the other hand, you change things like, "The phone number for Ghostbusters? 555-1212" to "555-1221" then that's an easy change. Hell, you can even clarify your testimony if your words or answers seem ambiguous or your choice of words is poor. Of course, this can be commented upon, but there's a little less ammo for counsel to say, "Ah, but didn't you say 'blank?'" Cuz you can say, "Yeah, and I changed it because I meant to say 'blink.' I don't know if it was an error by the court reporter, or if I just misspoke. But I read it and I fixed it."

In fact, when I do depos, if the witness is my witness, I will normally ask for a stipulation that I get the deponent's original signature. That way I can review the changes he/she wants to make and explain the consequences.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Look, the deposition transcript is there. It is what it is and says what it says. If there's anythign fishy then the stenographer is also a witness if necessary. What are you worried about, anyway? Every word is there and is on it.

Um, but in my limited experience with this, I've seen the transcript come out with things that are a bit different from what was intended from your spoken words, because of misinterpretations or misunderstandings by the stenographer. She does not automatically get everything correct.

I think you should ask the lawyer for a copy and check it out. If there is anything you disagree with, there is a procedure to file corrections.

As a result of that deposition, you may end up getting called into court to testify as a witness before a jury.

And at that point, you don't want some asshole lawyer doing this to you:

Lawyer: "Isn't it true that you said X?"
You: "No, I never said that."
Lawyer: "It says right here in this transcript (holding papers up for the jury to see) that you said X! So, are you lying now? Or were you lying then?"

Don't let that happen...

What he said.

I've done a number as expert witness on technical issues, and on one occasion the stenographer got all kinds of stuff wrong, probably because she hadn't a clue what some of the words were so inserted what she thought they were.

Read it VERY carefully and insist on correcting any mistakes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I've done a number as expert witness on technical issues, and on one occasion the stenographer got all kinds of stuff wrong, probably because she hadn't a clue what some of the words were so inserted what she thought they were.

This reminds me of a really slimey lawyer tactic I saw used in court...

The defense lawyer held up the transcript and forcefully asked the witness; "Isn't it true that in this deposition transcript you said X?"

What the lawyer is counting on the witness saying in response is something like; "Well, if it's in the transcript, then I must have said it."

But the witness didn't remember saying that, and refused to buckle under to the suggestion and intimidation. The witness shot back; "Show me the transcript where I said that."

The lawyer backed down, dropped the transcript on the table, and moved on to another question.

So what really happened with this exchange was that the lawyer was trying to "introduce" testimony that never really happened! The lawyer wanted the witness to agree that they must have said it, when in fact the lawyer knew all along that the witness hadn't. The lawyer was trying to "invent" testimony out of thin air.

Fortunately, the witness didn't fall for it. But I don't know if the jury was smart enough to realize what just transpired.

I thought it was highly unethical, and that the lawyer should have been slapped down hard for it by the judge.

This is the kind of bullshit that causes innocent people to be convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Winning should not be at the expense of the truth.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I've done a number as expert witness on technical issues, and on one occasion the stenographer got all kinds of stuff wrong, probably because she hadn't a clue what some of the words were so inserted what she thought they were.

This reminds me of a really slimey lawyer tactic I saw used in court...

The defense lawyer held up the transcript and forcefully asked the witness; "Isn't it true that in this deposition transcript you said X?"

What the lawyer is counting on the witness saying in response is something like; "Well, if it's in the transcript, then I must have said it."

But the witness didn't remember saying that, and refused to buckle under to the suggestion and intimidation. The witness shot back; "Show me the transcript where I said that."

The lawyer backed down, dropped the transcript on the table, and moved on to another question.

So what really happened with this exchange was that the lawyer was trying to "introduce" testimony that never really happened! The lawyer wanted the witness to agree that they must have said it, when in fact the lawyer knew all along that the witness hadn't. The lawyer was trying to "invent" testimony out of thin air.

Fortunately, the witness didn't fall for it. But I don't know if the jury was smart enough to realize what just transpired.

I thought it was highly unethical, and that the lawyer should have been slapped down hard for it by the judge.

This is the kind of bullshit that causes innocent people to be convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Winning should not be at the expense of the truth.

That hasn't happened to me, but a colleague had it happen, so I guess slimy lawyers are fairly common Oh the humanity!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I've had to do that before. I didn't think it was too major. I'm sure if you asked the attorney, he or she would provide you a copy. Nightingale would probably know off the top of her head.

Actually, I don't know this one. I don't take the trial practice class until next year. I sat in on a few depos as a law clerk, and copies didn't seem like an issue, tho.