In general
In determining who should do what when technology apparently fails, it may prove helpful to consider who has responsibility for what. Viewed from a functional perspective modern courtroom technology can be roughly divided into evidence presentation, court record, and “data” access and communications. Evidence presentation has been the primary interest of trial lawyers and the fundamental defining element of a “high-technology” courtroom.
Consequently, it is with problems with evidence display technologies6 that we are primarily concerned. At the same time, problems with other courtroom technologies are possible as well.
Court record technology is clearly the province of the court, and known problems with it may dictate a sudden halt to the proceedings. Data access and communications are more difficult to classify. Originally, this would have referred primarily to the judge’s or clerk’s access to electronic information in the courtroom.7 Now, however, it could include court-supplied videoconferencing to provide remote appearances by judge, counsel, or witness or wireless connectivity to the Internet for counsel. The former would be a court responsibility. Wireless connectivity, however, increasingly is provided to counsel by private vendors via agreement with the court. Whether problems with such connectivity primarily would be a “court” or a “counsel” responsibility would seem to be arguable.
Evidence display technology Initially, those lawyers who wished to use evidence presentation technology found themselves forced to obtain their own technology and ask the court’s permission to bring it into the courtroom and use it. Although many courts now supply technology, counsel-supplied technology continues. This stems from a variety of reasons:
1) The vast majority of modern courtrooms as yet have little or no technology so counsel may have no choice but to bring their own;
2) The courtroom may have its own technology, but counsel wish to augment it.
3) The court may supply a complete integrated high technology courtroom, but in almost all cases requires counsel who wish to use computer-based presentations to bring their own notebook computers and connect them to the courtroom’s visual display systems.
Dui attorney
When courts do supply counsel with evidence presentation technology, that technology may be permanently installed in the courtroom or may be portable and installed by the court staff in that courtroom for the given case. A number of courts are now using cart-based portable evidence display systems, often with a projector unit that projects counsel’s visual materials on a permanent or portable screen.
Courts that supply technology may be classified as permissive or mandatory. A permissive court supplies technology and permits its use by counsel on a voluntary basis. A mandatory court requires the use of its installed technology by counsel.The latter seems more characteristic of federal than state courts within the United States and more likely to apply to major cases.10 Mandatory courts likely are acting to maximize efficiency in case presentation.
0 Responses to “Technology and the Courtrooms”