A study by the Federal Judicial Center of 11 federal courts shows there may be more advantages to remote public access to electronic criminal case documents than disadvantages or potential harm and that the majority of federal judges in the study favor access. Fifty-seven percent of the district judges and 56 percent of the magistrate judges participating in a one-year pilot program said there should be unlimited remote public access to criminal case documents, excluding sealed documents. Four percent of the district judges and six percent of the magistrate judges said there should be no public access. The Judicial Conference acted on the report's findings at its September 2003 meeting.

In 2001, the Conference said it would revisit its prohibition of remote public electronic access to criminal case documents within two years. It later approved creation of a pilot program in which 11 courts would provide electronic access to criminal case files. The courts were selected by the Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM), with four additional districts serving as comparison courts.

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) agreed to study the pilot courts and provide the CACM Committee with a report of its findings. In studying the courts, the FJC asked what rules and procedures the pilot courts had promulgated for remote public access and what advantages and/or disadvantages such access presented to parties, judges and court staff. The research also attempted to identify any harm, or potential harm, that resulted from remote public electronic access.

Most of the pilot courts had allowed remote public access to criminal cases before the formal pilot program began.

They made an effort to conform their practices to the operational guidelines on document availability and redaction promulgated for the pilot project by the Administrative Office.

The guidelines prohibit remote public access to certain documents such as pretrial and presentence investigations, Statements of Reasons, and sealed documents, and require the pretrial redaction of certain information from all criminal filings, including Social Security numbers, names of minor children and home addresses. Redaction is the responsibility of the filing parties.

Judges and staff reported a number of advantages to remote access: savings in time and money, ease in case tracking, remote access by judges, reduced demand on the clerk's office for documents and earlier detection of errors, and reinforcement of the open and public nature of the court.

Few disadvantages were reported, but among them were the added court responsibility for deciding which documents would be available via remote public access; access by jurors or witnesses to criminal case documents; and the additional burden of scanning documents and ensuring the correct documents are available. For the period of the pilot project, respondents reported no instances of harm resulting from remote public access in any of the pilot courts.

The most commonly cited concern was identify theft, followed by the identification and possible harm to cooperating defendants, witnesses, or victims. Several respondents, however, pointed out that criminal defendants generally do not represent good targets for identity thieves.