On the Need to Study Processes of Taking Minutes from Case Hearings: Contribution to and Call for Future Research

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique volume 34, pages421–446(2021)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper’s aim is to promote greater interest in courtroom practices of minute-taking—the preparation of written documents that constitute a record of what was said and done in the courtroom during a case hearing, very often based on a judge’s dictation of rephrased questioned person’s statements to a clerk who records them. This aim is achieved through discussion ultimately focused on the distinguishable aspects of minute-taking (for example, faithfulness, frequency of interruptions, and linguistic precision), its possible underlying mechanisms (such as time limits or the quality of questioned person’s statements), and further consequences (especially for the dynamics of courtroom communication, opinions about judges, and basic procedural principles), followed by some remarks concerning the judge–clerk relationship outside the scope of minute-taking and more direct discussion of clerks themselves. The discussions and analyses presented here are empirically-grounded, forming a side result of a larger research project conducted in a Polish lower court that combined observations of case hearings with witness interviews. Despite their inadvertent origin, the investigations presented here demonstrate the complexity and multifaceted nature of minute-taking to a greater extent than previous relevant studies have revealed. While minute-taking has not been neglected entirely in legal research, there remain many questions to be addressed. This paper suggests some of these questions as well as potential directions for future research on minute-taking through discussion of how the identified aspects of minute-taking can be utilized and which theoretical frameworks may be applicable. Although the paper is a result of empirical research conducted in Poland, its aims are relevant outside the Polish context, particularly in other continental European countries where minutes are also taken from case hearings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. 1.

    Bednarek, Grażyna Anna. 2014. Polish vs. American Courtroom Discourse: Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedures of Witness Examination in Criminal Trials. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bednarz, Agnieszka. 2015. Przesłuchanie przed sejmową komisją śledczą jako gatunek komunikacji politycznej i medialnej [The Hearing Before the Parliamentary Investigation Committee as a Genre of Political and Media Related Communication]. Prawo i Polityka [Law and Politics] 6: 65–92.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bhatia, Vijay K., Christoph A. Hafner, Lindsay Miller, and Anne Wagner. 2012. Transparency, Power and Control in Legal Communication. In Transparency, Power and Control: Perspectives on Legal Communication, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christoph A. Hafner, Lindsay Miller, and Anne Wagner, 1–10. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bieliński, Arkadiusz. 2014. New Courtroom Technologies—Fears, Needs and Expectations. In Białystok Volumes on Law & Culture: Volume 1: Court Culture: Contemporary Problems, ed. Anna Piszcz, 143–152. Białystok: Temida 2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bilyeu Oakley, John, and Robert S. Thompson. 1980. Law Clerks and the Judicial Process: Perceptions of the Qualities and Functions of Law Clerks in American Courts. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bladowski, Bogdan. 2013. Metodyka pracy sędziego cywilisty [Methodology of Judge’s Work in Civil Cases], 4th ed. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field. Trans. Richard Terdiman. The Hastings Law Journal 38: 814–853.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cieślak, Marian. 1955. Podstawowe zagadnienia protokołów w procesie cywilnym i karnym (O właściwą praktykę i właściwe ujęcie kodyfikacyjne) [Basic Issues of Minutes in Civil and Penal Proceedings (For Proper Practice and Proper Codification)]. Państwo i Prawo [Law and State] 10: 585–613.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cisek, Rafał. 2011. E-protokół i inne „nowinki” informatyzacji sądownictwa, czyli po co to komu? [E-Protocol and Other “Novelties” of Informatisation of the Judiciary, or What is it for and for Whom?]. Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych [Electronic Media Law] 3: 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). 2019. Compilation of replies to the questionnaire for the preparation of the CCJE Opinion No. 22 (2019) entitled “The role of court clerks and legal assistants within the courts and their relationships with judges”. March 14, Available at https://rm.coe.int/compilation-all-replies-/16809463ff. Accessed 7 Oct 2019.

  11. 11.

    Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). 2019. Summary of the responses to the questionnaire for the preparation of the CCJE Opinion No. 22 (2019) on “The role of court clerks and legal assistants within the courts and their relationships with judges”. August 13, Available at https://rm.coe.int/summary-of-the-responses-to-the-questionnaire-for-the-preparation-of-o/168093f579. Accessed 7 October 2019.

  12. 12.

    Domagalski, Marek. 2013. W Warszawie togi dla protokolantów [In Warszawa, Robes for Clerks]. Rzeczpospolita.pl, August 18, Available at https://www.rp.pl/artykul/1039588-W-Warszawie-togi-dla-protokolanow.html. Accessed 7 October 2019.

  13. 13.

    Dudek, Michał, and Mateusz Stępień. 2019. “I (can) see myself… But what for?” On Live Camera Feeds in Courtrooms (from the Perspective of Witnesses). International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 32 (3): 641–660.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dziemianowicz, Małgorzata. 2014. New Courtroom Technologies—Reality. A Judge’s Perspective. In Białystok Volumes on Law & Culture: Volume 1: Court Culture: Contemporary Problems, ed. Anna Piszcz, 153–159. Białystok: Temida 2.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ereciński, Tadeusz. 1972. Aspekty socjologiczne sądowego postępowania cywilnego [Sociological Aspects of Civil Court Proceedings]. Studia Prawnicze [Legal Studies] 33: 181–225.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    GAB.B. n.d. Toga protokolancka [Clerk’s Robe]. Available at https://www.toga.com.pl/togi-prawnicze/toga-protokolancka. Accessed 7 October 2019.

  17. 17.

    Giles, Howard, ed. 2016. Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gmerek, Karolina. 2017. Metodologiczna przydatność protokołu sądowego w badaniach z pogranicza prawoznawstwa i językoznawstwa [Methodological Usefulness of Court Minutes in Research Bordering on Jurisprudence and Linguistics]. In Język prawny i prawniczy. I Kongres ogólnopolski [Language of Law and Legal Language. 1st Polish Congress], ed. Dorota Kondratczyk-Przybylska, Adam Niewiadomski, and Ewa Walewska, 41–59. Warszawa: Międzywydziałowe Koło Naukowe Kultury Języka Prawnego i Prawniczego Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego Lingua Iuris.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gmerek, Karolina. 2017. Przejawy intertekstualności w rozprawie sądowej [Intertextuality in Trial]. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej [Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy] 1: 34–51.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Gmerek, Karolina. 2019. Rozprawa sądowa jako zdarzenie komunikacji społecznej [Court Hearing as an Event of Social Communication]. Szczecin: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gołaczyński, Jacek. 2012. E-protokół wyzwaniem dla wymiaru sprawiedliwości [E-Minutes as a Challenge for the Judiciary]. Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych [Electronic Media Law] 1: 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gołaczyński, Jacek, Sylwia Kotecka, and Anna Zalesińska. 2010. Protokół w postaci zapisu dźwięku albo obrazu i dźwięki z posiedzenia jawnego w sprawach cywilnych [Minutes in the Form of Audio or Audio/Video Recording From a Public Session in Civil Cases]. Monitor Prawniczy [Legal Monitor] 19: 1045–1052.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Grzegorczyk, Tomasz. 1979. Odczytywanie na rozprawie protokołów przesłuchań w trybie art. 388 k.p.k [Reading the Minutes from Questioning at the Hearing Pursuant to Art. 388 of the Code of Criminal Procedure]. Nowe Prawo [New Law] 1: 94–107.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gurgul, Józef. 2001. Kryminalistyczne i psychologiczno-psychiatryczne zagadnienia dowodu z zeznań [Forensic, Psychological and Psychiatric Aspects of Evidence by Testimony]. Problemy Kryminalistyki [Issues of Forensic Science] 233: 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gurgul, Józef. 2006. Glosa do wyroku Sądu Apelacyjnego w Lublinie z 22 października 2003 r., II AKa 115/03 [Gloss to the Court of Appeal Judgment in Lublin on October 22, 2003, II AKa 115/03]. Palestra [Bar] 1–2: 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hennink, Monique, and Mary Beth Weber. 2013. Quality Issues of Court Reporters and Transcriptionists for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 23 (5): 700–710.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, Rev. and expan. 3 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Jones, Taylor, Jessica Rose Kalbfeld, Ryan Hancock, and Robin Clark. 2019. Testifying while black: An experimental study of court reporter accuracy in transcription of African American English. Language 95 (2): 216–252.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kaczmarek, Karolina. 2011. Lingua legis w aspekcie translatologicznym węgiersko-polskim i polsko-węgierskim [Lingua Legis in Hungarian-Polish and Polish-Hungarian Translation]. Comparative Legilinguistics: International Journal for Legal Communication 6: 5–228.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kluz, Piotr, and Marta Lech. 2014. Charakter protokołu elektronicznego w procedurze cywilnej [The Nature of Electronic Protocol in Civil Procedure]. Journal of Modern Science 4: 351–359.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Koczur, Joanna. 2018. Dlaczego świadek się myli? Kryminalistyczne, prawne oraz psychologiczne aspekty wypowiedzi świadków szczerych [Why the Witness is Wrong? Forensic, Legal and Psychological Aspects of Statements of Sincere Witnesses]. Kraków: Petrus.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kościółek, Anna. 2014. Protokół z posiedzenia jawnego w postępowaniu cywilnym [Transcript of Public Court Sessions in Civil Proceedings]. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego: Seria Prawnicza [Scientific Notebooks of the University of Rzeszów: Legal Series] 82: 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kotecka, Sylwia. 2011. „Protokół elektroniczny” w świetle rozporządzenia w sprawie zapisu dźwięku albo obrazu i dźwięku z przebiegu posiedzenia jawnego [“Electronic Minutes” in the Light of the Regulation on Audio or Audio/Video Recording from a Public Session]. Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych [Electronic Media Law] 3: 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Latour, Bruno. 2010. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d’État. Trans. Marina Brilman, and Alain Pottage. Rev.: Author. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  37. 37.

    Luhmann, Niklas. 2014. Law as a Social System. Trans. Klaus A. Ziegert. Ed. Fatima Kastner, Richard Nobles, David Schiff, and Rosamund Ziegert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  38. 38.

    Łazarska, Aneta, ed. 2015. Elektroniczny protokół a wymiar sprawiedliwości: Materiały konferencji Stowarzyszenia Sędziów Polskich „Iustitia”, Warszawa, 31 marca 2014 r. [Electronic Minutes and Justice System: Conference Proceedings of Polish Judges Association „Iustitia”, Warszawa, March 31, 2014]. Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie Sędziów Polskich „Iustitia”.

  39. 39.

    Łukowski, Wojciech. 2010. Nagrywanie rozpraw—niebezpieczeństwo czy szansa? [Recording Hearings—Danger or Chance?]. Iustitia 1: 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Marciniak, Sławomir. 2013. Art. 162 kodeksu postepowania cywilnego—zastosowanie, funkcje i znaczenie w procesie cywilny [Article 162 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code—Application, Functions and Its Role in the Civil Process]. Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review 2: 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Menzel, Jerzy. 2011. Obawy sędziów dotyczące wdrożenia elektronicznego protokołu [Judges’ Concerns About the Implementation of the Electronic Minutes]. Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych [Electronic Media Law] 3: 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Naworski, Maciej J. 2011. Nagrywanie rozpraw w sprawach cywilnych—wybrane aspekty zagadnienia [Recording Hearings in Civil Cases—Selected Aspects of the Issue]. Monitor Prawniczy [Legal Monitor] 2: 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Penman, Robyn. 1990. Facework & Politeness: Multiple Goals In Courtroom Discourse. In Multiple Goals in Discourse, ed. Karen Tracy and Nikolas Coupland, 15–38. Clevedon, Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Pilitowski, Bartosz, and Bogna Kociołowicz-Wiśniewska. 2019. Obywatelski monitoring sądów 2019 [Citizen Court Monitoring 2019]. Toruń: Fundacja Court Watch Polska.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Polish Law of 6 June 1997—Code of Criminal Procedure—Journal of Laws 1997, no. 89, item 555 (Compilation Act based on Journal of Laws 2018, items 987, 2399, and Journal of Laws 2019, items 150, 679, 1255, 1694).

  46. 46.

    Polish Law of 17 November 1964—Code of Civil Procedure—Journal of Laws 1964, no. 296 (Compilation Act based on Journal of Laws 2019, items 1460, 1469, 1495, 1649, 1655, 1798).

  47. 47.

    Polish Regulation of Minister of Justice of 18 June 2019—Regulations of ordinary courts—Journal of Laws 2019, item 1141.

  48. 48.

    RadioBiałystok. 2016. Protokolanci Sądu Okręgowego w Białymstoku na sali rozpraw będą występować w togach [Clerks of the District Court in Białystok Will Appear in Robes in the Courtroom]. December 27, Available at https://www.radio.bialystok.pl/wiadomosci/index/id/140192. Accessed 7 October 2019.

  49. 49.

    Rosengarten, Filip. 1981. Kto sporządza protokół z rozprawy karnej [Who Prepares Minutes from the Penal Case Hearing]. Nowe Prawo [New Law] 7–8: 148–153.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Scarduzio, Jennifer A., and Sarah J. Tracy. 2015. Sensegiving and Sensebreaking via Emotion Cycles and Emotional Buffering: How Collective Communication Creates Order in the Courtroom. Management Communication Quarterly 29 (3): 331–357.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Sielicki, Dariusz. 2003. Nowoczesne metody protokołowania czynności sądowych [Modern Methods of Minuting Court Activities]. Centrum Badań Problemów Prawnych i Ekonomicznych Komunikacji Elektronicznej. e-Biuletyn [Center for Research on Legal and Economic Problems of Electronic Communications. E-Newsletter] 4: 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sielicki, Dariusz. 2003. The Impact of the e-Court Solution on the Polish Judicial System. Centrum Badań Problemów Prawnych i Ekonomicznych Komunikacji Elektronicznej. e-Biuletyn [Center for Research on Legal and Economic Problems of Electronic Communications. E-Newsletter] 4: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Sobota, Adam. 2015. Zastrzeżenia do protokołu w postępowaniu cywilnym [Reservations to the Minutes in Civil Proceedings]. Wrocław: Stowarzyszenie Młodych Twórców „Kontrast”.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Stefański, Ryszard A. 2006. Protokolant w postępowaniu karnym [Clerk in Penal Proceedings]. Prokuratura i Prawo [Public Prosecution and Law] 11: 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Wagner, Anne, and Le Cheng. 2011. Language, Power and Control in Courtroom Discourse. In Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control, ed. Anne Wagner and Le Cheng, 1–8. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Winczorek, J. 2019. Dostęp do prawa: Ujęcie socjologiczne [Access to Law: A Sociological Approach]. Warszawa: SCHOLAR.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Winczorek, Jan, and Paweł Maranowski. 2014. Komunikacja w sądach po reformie kodeksu postępowania cywilnego z maja 2012 r. [Courtroom Communication After the Reform of the Civil Procedure Code of May 2012]. Radca Prawny: Zeszyty Naukowe [Attorney-at-Law: Scientific Notebooks] 1: 209–243.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Winczorek, Jan, and Paweł Maranowski. 2014. Komunikacja w sądach po reformie kpc: Raport z badań [Communication in Courts After the Reform of the Code of Civil Procedure: Research Report]. Warszawa: INPRIS, Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Zalesińska, Anna. 2011. Środowisko pracy sędziego i protokolanta po wdrożeniu systemu cyfrowej rejestracji przebiegu rozpraw sądowych w sądach powszechnych [Judge and Clerk’s Working Environment After the Implementation of the Digital Registration System for Case Hearings in Common Courts]. Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych [Electronic Media Law] 3: 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Zubelewicz, Emil. 2007. Protokoły sądowe jako konstrukcja kulturowa [Minutes of Trials as a Cultural Construct]. Ruch Prawniczy. Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny [Journal of Law, Economics and Sociology] 2: 183–195.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The paper was prepared within the research project „Dystans władzy na sali sądowej. Studium teoretyczno-empiryczne” [“Power Distance in the Courtroom. Theoretical and Empirical Study”] sponsored by the National Science Centre of Poland (Registration number 2015/19/B/HS5/00454). The authors declare their equal contribution in the creation of the paper. They would like also to thank here Anna Drwal and Jan Bazyli Klakla (who co-conducted described observations and interviews, as a realization of their Ph.D. student scholarship position within the mentioned project) and Karolina Gmerek (who commented on the paper manuscript).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Bracka 12, Room 214, 31-005, Kraków, Poland

    Michał Dudek & Mateusz Stępień

Authors
  1. Michał Dudek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mateusz Stępień
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michał Dudek.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dudek, M., Stępień, M. On the Need to Study Processes of Taking Minutes from Case Hearings: Contribution to and Call for Future Research. Int J Semiot Law 34, 421–446 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-019-09675-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Legal communication
  • Courtroom interactions
  • Minute-taking
  • Observations
  • Clerks
  • Judges