Courtroom Makeover Shows Value of Electronic Technology
Built in the 1960s, the Denver courthouse was not equipped to handle two
high-profile trials
In anticipation of the special needs of two high-profile
criminal trials, the Denver courtroom of Chief Judge Richard Matsch was brought
into the electronic age with some of the best technology available to federal
courts. The technology, which by all accounts helped the proceedings run
smoothly, is being used increasingly in federal courts throughout the country to
help bring economy and efficiency to the trial process.
The Denver courthouse was built in the 1960s, well before video
monitors, much less personal computers, were considered necessary components of
a trial. For example, to allow computers in the courtroom, new conduit had to be
laid in the concrete subflooring for data communication network connections. The
heating and ventilation systems also were upgraded to ensure the comfort of
participants and public during what promised to be lengthy procedures, and to
accommodate a profusion of electronic equipment.
Like these systems, much of the electronic technology added to
the courtroom is unobtrusive. In fact, from a juror's perspective, the
courtroom's make-over of the older traditional courtroom to the new electronic
courtroom may seem less than dazzling. That was the intent.
"The technology shouldn't run the courtroom," said clerk of
court James Manspeaker, "it should meet the court's requirements and function
for the duration of a trial without problems. In short, it should help us
conduct the most efficient proceeding possible. I think that's what we
accomplished in Judge Matsch's courtroom."
More federal courts are making use of electronic technologies
in courtroom situations and are adopting those aspectsfrom prerecorded videotape
of testimony or arguments to the computer imaging of exhibitsthat best answer
their needs. Judge Edward W. Nottingham (D. Colo.), chair of the Judicial
Conference Committee on Automation and Technology, has been a proponent of the
electronic courtroom and has encouraged his committee to pursue the idea.
"Electronic technology," said Nottingham, "assists the jury in a clearer
understanding of the case; it helps the fact-finders; and, in the way it
presents evidence, the technology appears to increase efficiency so that trials
may be conducted in less time." A study is underway in federal courts across the
country to determine the feasibility of procuring and installing electronic
technologies. By January 1999, the committee expects to make recommendations on
nationwide funding for electronic courtrooms.
White Noise and
Realtime
The audio system in Matsch's courtroom
was designed using the Guide Specification for Modification/Installation of
Audio Systems in U.S. Courthouses, prepared by Administrative Office staff
in cooperation with Polysonics Corporation. Microphones with mute buttons were
mounted on the bench, the two counsels' tables, and the clerk's desk. The
judge's bench also had a small omni-directional microphone for recording bench
conferences. Microphones were mounted on the witness stand and the attorneys'
podium.
Three zones of ceiling speakers controlled the volume of
proceedings in different parts of the courtroom. For those times when counsel
approached the bench and the judge wanted the conversation to be confidential,
white noise could be piped to the jury box effectively masking the
conversation.
An audio feed in the courtroom went to a nearby control room
for external transmission and also to a two-channel infrared emitter in the
courtroom, one channel for wireless headphones for listening assistance and the
second channel for simultaneous interpretation. With this system, an interpreter
did not need to be in the courtroom. During the trials, realtime transcription
of the proceedings was available from the court reporter, who used an internal
courtroom network and made the transcript available twice a day.
Visual
Presentation
An array of electronic monitors in
the courtroom guaranteed a clear view of documents, evidence and videotapes. Two
large 37" monitors were provided for jurors and the gallery. Smaller monitors
were at the judge's bench, the witness stand, the podium, and sunk into each
counsel's table. When videotapes, photographs, documents, physical evidence, or
computer-generated images were introduced in the trials, they could be viewed on
all the monitors when placed on a visual presenter next to the attorneys' podium
or when downloaded from laptop computers. The presenter was equipped with a flat
screen preview monitor and an annotation pen. A second annotation pen was
located at the witness stand.
The particularly unique feature of the video systemat least for
a federal courtroomwas mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996. That law required trial courts to order closed circuit televising
of proceedings to permit victims of crime to watch criminal trial proceedings in
cases where the venue of the trial is changed out of the state in which the case
was initially brought and more than 350 miles from the location in which those
proceedings originally would have taken place.
As a consequence, for the duration of the two trials in Denver,
a single video camera with a fixed lens was mounted in a wall pocket behind
optical glass above the public entrance door of the courtroom. The camera
provided a wide view of only the witness stand, the judge's bench, the
attorneys, and the defendant. A control room in the Denver courthouse
coordinated transmission of the video camera picture and accompanying audio to
an auditorium in Oklahoma City.
The digital intercity transmission service, based on fiber
optics and built specifically to accommodate the closed-circuit transmission,
was available to the court as needed or within 15 minutes of the court's
request. Encryption devices were included at both ends of the transmission and
were under the control of court-appointed personnel. Most important, over
several months of hearings and trial proceedings, the transmission was secure,
uninterrupted and unintercepted.
What, if anything, would Manspeaker do differently if he were
starting over to construct an electronic courtroom? "Not a thing," Manspeaker
said. "Everything we needed was in place. We asked for it, and the vendors and
the Administrative Office saw that it was installed."