Courtroom Technology Used Increasingly to Enhance Proceedings

More and more federal judges are singing the praises of courtroom technology, having decided that technological advances can both streamline litigation and increase juror understanding.

"It is important that we all embrace these new technologies because they truly can enable us to do our jobs in a more effective and efficient manner for the litigants who bring cases to the court system and for the public generally," says Judge Roger G. Strand (D. Ariz.).

A video evidence presentation system can "publish" photos or written documents, or present testimony, through courtroom monitors.

Just what is creating such enthusiasm? For the federal Judiciary, the modern courtroom offers four basic features:

• An evidence presentation system that enables the judge or lawyers to show jurors and each other case documents and exhibits on a network of monitors. Large, courtroom monitors allow the public to follow the proceedings.
• Video-teleconferencing, which, among other things, permits off-site witnesses to offer "live" testimony during trial and accommodates appellate proceedings without all participating judges and lawyers physically present.
• Integrated CD-ROM, video and audio capability, which allows lawyers to present their cases on videotape, audiotape, or through CD-ROM players attached to personal computers.
• Realtime transcription, a system that allows a court reporter's transcription to be viewed virtually simultaneously on monitors placed throughout the courtroom for use by the judge, lawyers, and jurors.

Laptop computers can be plugged into the console to have any laptop software program show up on the courtroom monitors. The console also can house a video cassette recorder, audio tape recorder, and printer.

An annotation pen can be used by attorneys to show a particular part of an exhibit to the jury or a witness.

"I got interested in the technology because I had two lengthy trials in which the lawyers brought in their own evidence presentation systems," Perry says. "The core of the system is a media cart, and I have that placed right next to the lawyer's lectern." While the system gives lawyers multi-media flexibility, Perry emphasizes the importance of the "kill switch" within her reach on the bench.

"The judge is always in control of the trial just like before," she says. "I realized all I needed was that one switch that turns off the jury monitors...I can still decide whether evidence is more prejudicial than probative. And I can control how many photographs get shown if we have an accident scene or injury site...My job as a judge has not changed. I still control what the jury sees and how much they see of it."

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Lee M. Jackwig (S.D. Iowa) has been using video-teleconferencing technology to hold court simultaneously in Des Moines and distant Davenport, and reports, "I find it rather stimulating."

When she used to listen to testimony in the ceremonial courtroom in Davenport, "the witness stand was ahead of the bench. In other words, my view of the witness was pretty much the back of the head and the profile. But a witness testifying (by video conference) is pretty much facing me on the screen. I have a very good view of that individual and can watch the facial expression, mannerism, etc., that go into judging credibility."

Video-teleconferencing has been employed by appellate courts, too. "I am one of those antediluvian people who still do everything in old-fashioned ways," says Judge Guido Calabresi (2^nd Cir.). I don't use a computer...so when I heard about that video-conferencing I wouldn't say I was sure it wouldn't work, but I was very skeptical."

He was pleasantly surprised. "It worked out very well. I've had no problems with it at all," Calabresi says. "And more than that, I had a sense that people have been able to make their arguments in a way that is more relaxed than if they had to come rushing down from a long distance."

Chief Judge Rodney S. Webb (D. N.D.) says technology saves time. "In the past in trials with a lot of papers, or trials that had a lot of pictures, you had to publish these things and distribute them to the jury. Now we publish all pictures and written documents received in evidence through the monitors, and it saves enormous amounts of time," he says.

Judge James Gwin (N.D. Ohio) also credits lawyers' use of audio and video technology for moving cases along faster and more smoothly. "In most cases, I estimate that it moves things along 30 percent faster," he says. "In a traditional trial, there is so much dead time with lawyers shuffling papers for witnesses' examination. Even when exhibit books are used, there's time taken to get the witness to the right page, the right paragraph."

One audio enhancement -infrared headphones- has aided listening to sometimes-grainy undercover tapes, and can be used by jurors with hearing impairments, Gwin adds.

Statistics for fiscal year 2001 indicate that usage of realtime transcription court reporting is on the rise. In district courts, the total pages reported was 958,761 -compared to 710,553 in FY 2000, an increase of 35 percent. Realtime transcription can be directed to, and displayed on, monitors at the judge's bench, counsel tables, or jury box. "It's a great enhancement to the proceedings," says Strand.

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Lee M. Jackwig (S. D. Iowa) has been using video conferencing technology during various bankruptcy proceedings over the last several years. In this proceeding, the remote site monitor is to Jackwig’s right.

Back in 1997, a survey of federal judges found that courtroom technology was gaining wider acceptance. Of more than 1,000 responses, 80 percent of the judges indicated they had experience with or planned to use the newest technology. The survey was one of the first efforts of the Administrative Office's Electronic Courtroom Project, initiated to study and evaluate existing and emerging technologies.

As judges grow more comfortable with such technology, some of them voice concern that lawyers have not reached the same comfort level. "There seems to be a reluctance by the bar to embrace the new technology," Judge Ortrie D. Smith (W.D. Mo.) says in discussing his court's video-conferencing system.

Judge Janis Graham Jack (S.D. Tex.) and her court's staff have produced a 12-minute videotape "tour" of her state-of-the-art courtroom in Corpus Christi, Texas, to introduce lawyers and parties to its capabilities. "Judge Jack wanted this video not only to share with other judges, but also to be used as a training tool for lawyers practicing in her courtroom," says Natalie Hammond, who is with the district court's systems department. "The tape has been well received by those who have seen it. Most attorneys comment that they wish all courtrooms had this technology."

The court plans to distribute the video to bar groups, and recently posted it on its web site, at www.txs.uscourts.gov/technology/corpus.htm