Videoconferencing Links Federal Courts and Public
A circuit judge in the Tenth Circuit is unable to travel, but can
participate in appellate proceedings when videoconferencing links the court in
Cheyenne, Wyoming, to the court in Denver, Colorado. In the Western District of
Texas, the testimony of an emergency room physician in Del Rio is heard by the
jury, defendant, and lawyers in a trial three hours away in San Antonio.
From its beginning as a pilot program in a handful of federal
appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, videoconferencing has grown to link
federal courts with remote locations, prisons, and far-flung divisional courts.
The U.S. attorney's offices, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Bureau
of Prisons also have videoconferencing programs that are accessible to the
courts or are conducted in cooperation with federal court programs. The
videoconferencing experience, although not for all judges or counsel who may
prefer face-to-face meetings or who may feel there is an unfair advantage to
only one party being present in the courtroom, is gaining acceptance in federal
courts across the country.
Appeals Courts
In
appellate courts, video-conferencing lets attorneys, parties, and judges save
the time they might expend travelling to attend oral arguments, rehearings en
banc, settlement conferences and Appellate Rule 34(f) decisions on the briefs.
Appellate courts are an especially suitable venue for videoconferencing because,
unlike trial courts, law, not evidence, is argued at this level. Witness
testimony is not part of the appellate proceedings, documents do not need to be
produced for viewing by a jury, and there are a smaller number of
participants.
Videoconferencing offers appellate panels increased scheduling
flexibility and time savings. In some circuits where motions proceedings are
handled routinely by teleconferencing, videoconferencing may be an
improvement.
Currently, the Second, Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits
make use of videoconferencing. With support from the Administrative Office, the
Tenth Circuit began using videoconferencing with oral arguments in criminal
cases, then expanded to civil cases, and later accommodated judges in remote
locations at Kansas City, Wichita and Cheyenne. The process has been accompanied
by some technological tweaking, according to Judge John C. Porfilio
(10th Cir.). "We've gone to three video cameras for a larger image of
the bench for the benefit of the lawyers, and we've increased the broadcasting
power. We'd like to improve the delay time, too. It's disconcerting at first to
see lips move and then hear the voice. However, I've found that the lawyers who
participate in videoconferenced sessions, once they get over the initial impact
of arguing in front of a camera, argue just as they would in a courtroom." And,
Porfilio says, lawyers don't mind going to Oklahoma City from Tulsa, for
example, if it saves them a day trip to Denver. In fact, last September the
situation was reversed when the court sat in Oklahoma City and the proceedings
were videoconferenced to lawyers in a Denver courtroom.
District Courts
Following a two-year pilot study conducted in four district courts, the
Judicial Conference, in July 1996, authorized funding to district courts meeting
certain caseload and other criteria for the use of videoconferencing in prisoner
civil rights pretrial proceedings. Presently 34 district courts have qualified
for participation in the project, contingent on the satisfaction of all project
criteria, including the requirement that program costs are shared with the
participating state, local, or federal prison authorities. This Judicial
Conference initiative anticipated the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which
included the requirement that federal courts "to the extent practicable,"
conduct prison condition pretrial proceedings "in which the prisoner's
participation is required or permitted" by telephone, videoconference, or other
telecommunications technology, without removing the petitioner from the prison
facility.
While the chief value of videocon-ferencing prisoner
proceedings lies in the travel time saved by judicial officers and improved
scheduling, videoconferencing also eliminates security concerns involved in the
transportation of prisoners. The technology is routinely used for pretrial
hearings with inmates to screen civil rights complaints. However, courts also
use videoconferencing for other matters when there are compelling geographic and
scheduling concerns.
Judge Fred Biery (W. D. Tex.) remembers not so long ago when
the Del Rio courtroom in the Western District of Texas was regularly jammed with
50 to 60 defendants awaiting sentencing, while another 50 people would be
awaiting arraignment.
"In the Western District of Texas," said Biery, "we've seen the
number of felony defendants go from 150 to 800 in the last five years. Most of
these are handled in the Del Rio divisional courthouse where there is no
full-time judge." According to Biery, defendants for the once-a-month
proceedings at the court were bused from all over the district.
"We could get through 50 to 60 sentencings a day if we moved
along and didn't take lunch," said Biery. "These weren't complicated cases. But
it was very impersonal." Several months ago, the district began
videoconferencing sentencings from the San Antonio court. "We try to do between
eight and 10 sentencings every Thursday morning from San Antonio," said Biery.
"We do them individually and we give them the attention I think they deserve.
The majority of the defendants don't speak English, so we use a translator. I
think with the videconferencing the defendant has a better perspective on what
is happening. With the cameras, it's like they are sitting six feet away. There
is a one-on-one relationship that just wasn't possible before."
Some courts have taken the project a step further by using the
technology to take witness testimony in trials. Other courts plan to expand to
other courtroom proceedings and most are regularly using videoconferencing for
administrative and training functions. However, in the federal courts, the
legality of using videoconferencing to con-duct certain criminal proceedings is
in question. The Ninth Circuit has held that videoconferencing of arraignments
violates Rules 10 and 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
together require the presence of the defendant in open court.
Concerns also have been raised about the use of
videoconferencing for in-court proceedings involving defendants represented by
attorneys appointed under the Criminal Justice Act. Some of these concerns may
be allayed by the success of its use in a steadily increasing range of
proceedings and its obvious advantages to parties under special circumstances.
Duke Argetsinger of the AO's Court Administration Policy Staff, who has worked
extensively on video-conferencing projects since the inception of its use in
federal courts observed, "Videoconferencing cannot replace the physical presence
of a judge. It is a tool to enhance and supplement the services that the court
provides to the public. Under unique geographic and caseload circumstances, it
enables the court to do its work better."
Bankruptcy Courts
Videoconferencing in the bankruptcy courts is used for a wide range of
contested and non-contested matters. Bankruptcy courts can make good use of
videoconferencing because of the numerous hearings that are required under
federal bankruptcy law. The use of videoconferencing to replace travel by the
judge, counsel, and parties can produce significant savings in travel time and
costs. For example, under a pilot program conducted by the Judicial Conference,
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas pioneered the use of
videoconferencing to conduct hearings between divisional locations 400 miles
apart. The district now has expanded use of technology to four additional
divisional locations. Bankruptcy Appellate Panels, especially, find that
videoconferen-cing eases scheduling, while reducing travel time because panel
judges are often separated by considerable distances within their
circuits.
In Iowa, federal courts are linked to the state's fiber optic
network, which has one point of presence in each of the state's 99 counties. The
network also can link to other sites throughout the country. An Iowa bankruptcy
trustee recently used the network to link a meeting of creditors to a debtor in
Vancouver, Canada.
Bankruptcy Judge Lee Jackwig (S. D. Iowa) has used
videoconferencing in bankruptcy hearings since 1996. To date, most hearings have
been between Davenport and Des Moines, where Jackwig sits. "Instead of traveling
six hours round trip to Davenport to handle routine matters every other month, I
run down to the third floor in our courthouse and conduct the hearings. Now I'm
`virtually' in Davenport every month and can be there with 10 minutes notice."
At times Jackwig has had parties in up to five locations participating in a
videoconferenced hearing. "I try to maintain the traditional courtroom feel as
much as possible," said Jackwig. "In the beginning, the camera is pulled back to
show the bench, the door through which I'll enter, and the deputy standing to
say `All rise.' And everyone at the connecting site is expected to rise because
they are part of the courtroom." All parties at all locations are able to see
each other without any delay in the picture or the sound because of the state's
fiber optic network.
Once the hearing begins, Jackwig likes to show a
picture-within-a-picture on the video screen, of her sitting at the bench and
the counsel table. Her own video screen shows the entire courtroom. "I feel I'm
almost better able to assess the credibility of the witnesses on the
videoconferencing screen," said Jackwig, "because in at least one of the trial
courts, the judge has a partial view of the witness. When they're on the screen,
I see them face to face."