Personally, I think that's a good thing – having a platform for performance motivates just that, and I don't want a performance from judges, I want soberly considered and carefully constructed legal opinions.
It seems that the pattern is, there is one common face-value meaning of the sentence that is meant regardless of the emphasis, and then there is a secondary meaning that depends on the emphasis. Usually one of the words simply makes the sentence more emphatic, but emphasizing any of the other words establishes some kind of contrast (not too different from the way "if" is sometimes used to mean "if (and only if)"): e.g. "I didn't say you stole my money" implies "I did say <someone else> stole my money", "I love studying English" may imply "I don't love <doing something else with> English". Even "I didn't say you stole my money" probably implies "I did say <someone else> stole my <something else>". And often the secondary meaning is at least as important as the primary meaning.
I suspect this kind of expression is natural enough that forbidding everyone in the courtroom from using it is impractical.
Given that it can matter so much, trusting scribes to accurately record the emphasis, without keeping audio recordings around, seems dangerous. (One might say something similar about the transcription itself.)
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/adobe...