Courtroom Makeover Shows Value of Electronic Technology

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.
 

The floor plan shows placement of electronic technology within a representation of the Denver courtroom.

White Noise and Realtime

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.

"The technology shouldn't run the courtroom...it should help us conduct the most efficient proceeding possible."

Visual Presentation

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."