Please note that these materials are provided for historical purposes only. The information presented is out of date and may be neither accurate nor useful. External hyperlinks may no longer be valid.

Videoconferencing

ntroduction

Videoconferencing technology helps local government cut staff time spent in transporting prisoners and reduces security risks in courthouses. The court can use videoconferencing to conduct arraignments, pretrial release interviews, mental health hearings, pretrial conferences, and other events without requiring the parties to be at the same location. While most videoconferencing systems in use today require cameras, monitors, and cables, new technology allows video to be transmitted over existing PC local area networks (LANs). And, as fiber optic cable replaces copper wire in the nation’s telephone infrastructure, and as compression technology is enhanced, videoconferencing will be possible and affordable using standard telephone lines.

escription

The primary components of a simple videoconferencing system are television cameras, monitors, microphones, speakers, and a communications network. Facsimile machines, telephones, and computer-based switchers may be added to more complex systems.

The communications network can be as simple as a pair of coaxial cables running between the court and the jail, or as complicated as satellite transmission and reception facilities. Unless the organizations wanting to communicate are in the same building or are directly adjacent to one another, a communications network run through the telephone system is the most cost-effective approach. A T1 line (the equivalent of 24 standard voice-grade telephone circuits) or a portion of a T1 is required to run high-quality video and audio in two directions. The fiber optic cabling now being installed by telephone companies in many parts of the country has a very high capacity compared to more traditional copper wiring. Videoconferencing will eventually be as practical as placing a telephone call.

Wiring used to connect personal computers in local area networks also can be used to conduct videoconferences. A small television camera mounted on the personal computer monitor connects to a special board in the PC. Software routes video and audio signals between selected locations, displaying the image from each camera on the other participant’s PC screen.

Court events, conferences, and meetings using videoconferencing are similar to those conducted when all parties are in the same room. Everyone sits in front of a television monitor and can see the parties at the other location. The television camera is located so that eye contact appears natural. Sound volume and camera angles can be adjusted so everyone sees and hears comfortably.

Videoconferences can include more that two locations. When there are multiple sites, monitor screens are split so each participant can see everyone else, or are switched using voice-activated microphones, so the current speaker is shown.

ackground

An Illinois court first used video technology to conduct videophone bail hearings in 1972. A Philadelphia court installed a closed-circuit television system for preliminary arraignments in 1974. In the more than 20 years since these initial experiments, fewer than 150 courts in 17 states have invested in videoconferencing systems.

Also surprising is the fact that courts have rarely sought effective uses of videoconferencing beyond arraigning prisoners. While a handful of courts do conduct mental health hearings, appellate court oral arguments, probation interviews, and pretrial conferences, the vast majority restrict equipment use to its original purpose--prisoner arraignments.

Dade County, Florida, began using videoconferencing technology for misdemeanor arraignments in 1983. The county court arraigns misdemeanor defendants through a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system linking the judge at the courthouse and the accused in the Dade County Jail. A videotape, made during the hearing, is the official record of the proceeding.

Rhode Island was one of the first states to consider a statewide videoconferencing network to handle prisoner arraignment. Their 1990 feasibility study was followed by similar evaluations and pilot tests in a number of other states. No court system has yet implemented videoconferencing technology on a large scale.

Videoconferencing has, however, proven effective in reducing the need for an organization’s staff to travel long distances for meetings. It has been used successfully for educational programs in the Arizona courts, by the Alabama Judicial College, and for a faculty development workshop preceding the Fourth National Court Technology Conference (CTC4). A medical college in Georgia even conducts remote interactive diagnostic conferencing: doctors can examine the retina or inner ear of a patient in a rural area without leaving their offices.

Roughly 25 firms market a wide range of videoconferencing products to courts. Rapid improvements in the technology and in the nation’s telephone system will make videoconferences as feasible as telephone conversations in the next decade. The challenge for courts is to be ready to use the technology, rather than being forced to use it by more progressive law firms or government organizations.

pportunities

Videoconferencing has proven itself an effective tool for prisoner arraignments, reducing the cost of transportation and security. As fewer defendants are transported to the courthouse, security is increased for the law enforcement agency and risk is reduced for the court. Holding areas once reserved for prisoners can be converted to other uses.

Videoconferencing could enhance other court processes as well. Travel and waiting time are eliminated when attorneys can meet with judges from their own offices. As time spent in conferences and hearings is reduced, the cost of litigation diminishes and cases are processed faster. Videoconferencing can eliminate the time and travel associated with staff meetings, education, and administrative matters, keeping judges and court staff on the spot to resolve cases and to conduct the other business of the court. Videoconferencing can bring witnesses into the courtroom from remote locations, facilitating sensitive testimony from children and victims.

In a videoconference, the quality of communication is better than over a telephone. Eye contact allows each individual to see a response and gauge a reaction, to provide further information, ask a question, or try a different method of explanation.

In short, videoconferencing eliminates or lessens the impact of time, distance, and poor reception in communications. Court staff function more effectively and efficiently. Better service is available at lower cost to the public.

imitations

In criminal proceedings, defendants may react negatively to videoconferencing. They may question the adequacy of legal representation when defendant and counsel are at separate locations, and demand to confront witnesses in person. Defendants like to get out of a detention facility, which may increase their desire to go to the courthouse. A few judges complain that the lack of contact with a witness makes it difficult to assess the competence of the witness. Some have indicated that video arraignments are less formal, which may either lessen the deterrent effect of a court appearance or reduce tension and allow issues to be resolved more easily.

Another important problem arises from the transfer and examination of documents. While fax machines can move the papers quickly, there are limitations to the number of times the same document can be transmitted before the quality becomes unacceptable.

Because videoconferencing must route all communications through a single channel, the technology seems to work best when the primary communication is between one (or two or three) individuals at one site and another person (or a few people) at another site. When many people need to communicate with many others, videoconferencing has severe limitations--particularly if the parties are at several locations.

Equipment failures are always a drawback when using electronic technology. Though infrequent, an equipment or line problem at a critical time can waste the time of multiple staff members.

A final issue is compatibility of equipment. Standards are not complete for all types of conferencing, so potential users should not assume that any videoconferencing equipment will work with all other types of hardware.

osts

There are three primary costs for videoconferencing: equipment, telephone lines, and a conferencing facility. Videoconferencing hardware ranges in price from $6,000 to $70,000; a court should expect to pay about $40,000 for a monitor and camera unit that is adequate. PC-based videoconferencing initially cost about $7,000 per workstation, but is rapidly dropping toward $1,000 for some simple systems.

Line installation and lease charges for videoconferencing can be significant, since the court will be paying for the equivalent of up to 24 standard telephone circuits. Videoconferences must be insulated from noise and human traffic that can distract participants. Renovations to existing facilities may be required before videoconferencing equipment can be used successfully.

Assistance

The Technology Information Exchange Service (TIES), operated by the National Center for State Courts and funded by the State Justice Institute, provides a number of services to courts:

a Court Technology Bulletin highlights the latest developments in video technology;
a Court Technology Database offers information on courts throughout the nation that are using videoconferencing;
a vendor-neutral Court Technology Laboratory is available to test and compare products;
the Technology Information Service shares evaluation reports on state-of-the-art systems and information gleaned from industry publications, and lists of vendors who sell videoconferencing technology.

To receive information on TIES or any of the other technology research, education, or consulting programs of the National Center for State Courts, call Court Technology Programs at (757) 259-1544.

This document was developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.

Technology Services

Briefing Papers