What I don't understand is the stenographer's union's objection to microphones:
Mr. DiGiovanna said digital recorders sometimes failed to catch every word,
as lawyers tend to move around the courtroom.
First, lawyers can only move around the courtroom (Perry Mason style) in certain jurisdictions. Most places have the lawyer stand behind a podium while speaking. Second, even in jurisdictions that allow lawyers to pace about the courtroom, wouldn't a wireless microphone be adequate to capture what he or she is saying? Finally, every limitation of digital recording also applies to the stenographer herself. You could strip out "digital recorders" and replace it with "human stenographer" and the statement would be equally valid.
According to the New York Post, who originally broke the story, Kochanski often replaced trial dialogue with the phrase "I hate my job" or other gibberish [1]
