Transcripts and Court Audio

The Maryland Rules relating to court audio and court transcripts are such that both are made available to the public.


While the transcripts are public documents and can be freely reproduced, the audio recordings are not cannot be reproduced or broadcast. They are available for purchase and are provided on data CDs. The CDs cannot be played on a standard player. They can played on a PC running Windows. XP or a newer version is required.

Anyone who would like to get a copy of the trial audio from the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al. nuisance lawsuit trial can order the 4 CD set from the court. Technical Services is open from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm ET. Their phone number is (240) 777-9150. To process a CD order Technical Sevices needs the case number (380966V), the case name (Kimberlin v. Walker, et al.), the dates (11 and 12 August, 2014), and the judge’s name (Judge Johnson).

One more thing … someone briefly posted the trial audio on the Internet. That was a violation of the Maryland Rules, and The Dread Pro-Se Kimberlin is making noise about trying to pin that violation on one of the defendants. If you do get a copy, please don’t post it.

9 thoughts on “Transcripts and Court Audio

  1. Yes, we play by the rules, the other side doesn’t. Various people on Team Kimberlin have posted audio over the years. Bluntly the court doesn’t make a massive case out of it. They generally limit their response to calling up YouTube (or whatever) and demanding it being taken down.

    I suspect this rule would not withstand scrutiny under the 1st A if really challenged, but who has time for that?

    So i encourage anyone who wants to listen to a live reading of McCain’s 5 rules to get a million hits on your blog, you can either call Stacy really nice and ask, or you can call up tech services and request a copy. I believe they even take credit cards over the phone. Here’s their website:

    It is truly popcorn-worthy.

    (Pro-tip: you might ask if they can eliminate the jury selection or “Voir Dire” part and save some money. That was truly irrelevant given that the jury didn’t get the case. I don’t know if they can chop it up that way, but it can’t hurt to ask.)

    • “So i encourage anyone who wants to listen to a live reading of McCain’s 5 rules”

      I haven’t heard it, but I imagine it’s even better than Shakespeare in the original Klingon.

  2. I don’t understand why there would be any special restrictions on audio. The official transcript was full of errors, the public ought to have free/ minimal access to audio, and any video available. Of course neither I nor you make the rules but I don’t see the sense in them.

    • I agree. I have long said that there is a first amendment right to courtroom video. courtroom audio only follows.

      I think the logic is this. It used to be that they would have a court reporter. But at some point they shifted to recording everything. Judge Johnson indicated that the system used to be reel-to-reel tape, so that dates it a bit.

      I think what happened is the court said, “this will be much better than having court reporters at every hearing.”

      And the lawyers said, “eeek! i don’t want my voice all over the place!”

      So to get the lawyers to agree, they agreed to this compromise. That’s just my educated guess on what happened, but it seems logical.

      i am very tempted to file a motion seeking an exception to this and settle this issue.

    • I guess he did, and the noise was something like “Good, my minion – you followed my orders.” The noises BS made back in response can’t be properly transcribed.

Leave a Reply