Are TDD Transcripts Allowed in Court?
Monday October 13, 2008
Ticklerkid has a legal question on the forum: "Does anyone know if TDD transcripts are admissible in court or where I can find this out?" Ticklerkid is asking because he/she has many pages of TDD transcripts covering discussions about an upper level manager. I recognize this question as being one that has been answered in past legal cases, but can not remember what the court ruling was. Does anyone have a good answer for Ticklerkid? Post your answer to Ticklerkid on the forum (no registration required).
Comments
1) Speaking about TTD transcription you can copy on ttd print out before print out will fade. I suggesting you to print out on printer machine so TTD transcription will not fade. Better to get printer machine so TTD printer will fade becuase of old paper.
2) you need to make three copies of each page you will give lawyer or court to use your example TTD print out.
You should read about NAD Website and www.ada.gov about relay service.
Here is NAD website http://blogs.nad.org/advocacy/2008/09/13/nad-wins-victory-in-court-for-relay-users/
Hope you have a good luck with Court related to TTD transcriptions. Show your lawyer or Specialist A.D.A.
Good luck,
Deaf Pixie
The TTY transcript is admissiable in court ONLY if the caller asks permission that this conversation is recorded.
If the permission was not asked or approved, court will not accept TTY transcript.
I’ve seen some judges allow them some dont. If the TDD transcript are backed up with other hard evidence than it’s likely the judge will accept them.
harleygirl248, Correct. I forgot to say some about that.
Hey! RR - I am totally sick of you twist.. he is wrong! Don”t listen Richard Rohem! New passed law . Go looking at NAD. It changed already it was passed the law!
Deaf Pixie,
You have problem with Richard Roehm’s comment? He was just sharing what he had seen, and his comment wasn’t irrevelant on that subject. Also, his comment didn’t seem that he was bullying. I suggest you revise your attitude toward him for a change.
Deaf Pixie… What did Richard twist? There was nothing twisted in his comment. He gave a very netural comment. “Some say yes, some say no” That’s all he said. What’s your problem? Why are you cyberbullying people not allowing to make comments???
Each legal situation is different. This person should contact his or her attorney regarding this matter. He or she may also want to contact the NAD.
Sorry, I have hard time with Richard’s twist because he just comment were wrong.
His background has been delete his vlog in deafvideo.tv because he’ve bully or twist on DeafVideo.tv.. you should looking it was incident almost two days ago. The lady was very angry at him.
NAD say the new ADA passed law that the court must deal with TTD evidence with comment when you have to let the people who or whatever the deaf or hard of hearing person must let them know that print out is TDD docucment for court. But in job interview appt is on TDD that the company should aware of about TDD print out for evidence as relay operator is not responsible for comment unless you say It is for court. Keep remind to people on the phone before you go ahead to communicate. I know most of court refused to take serious with ADA law.. Most judge doesnt familiar about ADA law with related TDD Transcption
For example, The company from HealthPort who was not able to contact me without phone number in my job resumes. she asked me How can I talk with you on the phone. Do you have idea .. I emailed her that I let you know that I am deafness and cannot use phone due to my hearing loss. So I can use instructing you how to use TDD relay service. Give #____ and RElay service Home #____ Explaination to her how to use TDD .. and also information them to use print out for court or evdience in the future. Without threatened HealthPort Company. Just explaination the situation. Then HealthPort need to familiar about TTD relay service with NAD. You see “NAD Wins Victory in Court for Relay Users”
I decide to copy and paste from NAD.org
http://blogs.nad.org/advocacy/2008/09/13/nad-wins-victory-in-court-for-relay-users/
This decision by the Court of Appeals is a victory for everyone who uses relay services. The case involved a new legal issue: whether statements transmitted by a communications assistant in a call made through a telecommunications relay service (TRS) are admissible. NAD attorney, Michael Stein, argued the relay service issue before the Court of Appeals.
In dismissing the case, the district court had relied on its conclusion that key evidence – a telephone conversation conducted through relay service between the employer and the deaf job applicant – was inadmissible hearsay. The Court of Appeals said that was wrong. The Court of Appeals recognized that if the employer and job applicant “had spoken to each other over an ordinary phone line as two hearing persons would have done,” the job applicant could testify about the employer’s statements with no hearsay problems.
The Court of Appeals was guided by cases involving foreign language interpreters that presume that translated statements “are otherwise admissible unless there is a showing of unreliability or a motive to mislead.” The Court of Appeals also looked at four factors used “to check for likely bias or unreliability on a case-by-case basis”:
[1] which party supplied the interpreter,
[2] whether the interpreter had any motive to mislead or distort,
[3] the interpreter’s qualifications and language skill, and
[4] whether actions taken subsequent to the conversation were consistent with the
statements as translated.
Deaf Pixie.