Why is the US legal system still reliant on manual court reporters, rather than digital copy equipment?

I think because its easier to scan a page and find what was said a lot quicker when something has to be read back.

Quite a bit of recording is already done, many trials are video’d, but the reporter’s transcript ensures the word spoken, and takes away discussion of the actual word spoken. Two people listening to a person speak can hear slightly different things. The court reporter will ask for things to be repeated..

And, with modern equipment, both attorneys can see the transcript on a screen in real time, and seek clarification immediately if not clear.

But if something is stricken from the record, it is not recoverable for later use in a plea.

A musical answer: link

Also, as good as voice recognition equipment, it is still not as good as the human ear, especially for slang expression, people with accents, and colloquialisms.

“Wouldn’t it be easier to judge a mistrial if there was a record of what a judge had ‘stricken from the record’?”

That right there is a problem. Even if we dismiss the possibility of a biased judge striking things from the record so that appeals courts never hear that testimony, we are left at the fact that it would require the legal system to change how it operates.

The legal system evolves very slowly and is largely guided by tradition and precedent, so getting them to change will be a slow process. Allowing appellate courts access to the entire proceedings rather than a redacted version would be a fairly major change and thus take even longer for them to adopt due to their hidebound nature.

I thought I heard it was because they have an incredibly strong union.

It seems there is such a thing as a ‘digital court reporter’, as in an actual person that sits in the courtroom and takes ‘notes’ (not transcribe while maintaining the recording equipment,

Traditional court reporters take 2–3 years to train, digital court reporters 6 months.

New Jersey seems to have gone digital.
North Carolina is digital in District, but no word how the other came out.
Oregon has no official reporters outside of the federal courts.

Update on @Judi‘s union comment.

I was on a jury once (in California) and the court reporter asked a witness to slow down. This was contested testimony and as a jury we needed to have the reporter read back some of his testimony. She made a mess of it and although I believe she got the just of what he said, she didn’t really get ALL of what he said. If he had a good defense attorney he or she could probably get the conviction overturned because of it (if it were any place in California but Bakersfield.)