CTC Session Articles
Education Session Article
This article was written in support of a presentation given at CTC6 in 1999.
The High-Tech Courtroom: A Design Vision for the Future
By Martin E. Gruen, Samuel H. Solomon
Judicious implementation of advanced legal technologies has enhanced the court's ability to meet the needs of the public it serves, while preserving the dignity and fairness of the proceedings. This paper provides an overview of the technologies and issues involved in designing and implementing an effective "High Tech Courtroom." It is based upon recent experiences in the development of a number of projects, primarily the U.S. District Court -- Northern District of Ohio, the District of Oregon, the District of Puerto Rico -- as well as design of the state courts in New York and Orlando, Fl. Successful educational courtroom facilities, such as Courtroom 21 at the William and Mary Law School in Virginia, and the newly opened National Advocacy Center, have contributed to this body of knowledge as well. The concept of the high tech courtroom, and the observations presented here, represent an evolution of thought. They are a "snapshot" in time, to help explore current justice technologies and future visions.
The High Tech Courtroom provides an integrated and multi-disciplined environment to assist in the fact-finding endeavor. Using advanced telecommunications, it breaks through traditional "walled" boundaries of a courtroom, expanding the judicial forum beyond the limits of physical space. While attention is most often given to the evidence presentation and videoconferencing features of the high tech courtroom, these are merely components of a meticulously engineered "information architecture" that boasts both intra and inter information capabilities.
The key to making these various technologies work is directly related to ease of use and seamless systems integration. This is actually quite a challenge, given the wide range of court functions and technology skills of the trial participants. The "modern" courtroom must serve the needs of the judge, courtroom deputy, court reporter, witness, attorneys, bailiff, judge's clerk and even the jury! Intricate knowledge of the court's unique needs and traditions are crucial to the design process. Of equal importance from an "end user" standpoint, is the investment of time and money by the courts and members of the profession in proper training and utilization at trial.
The courtroom presentation system facilitates the trial process. It does not, in any way, provide evidence content. This assumption is fundamental to the practical implementation of a "high tech" courtroom. Content, as well as the attorney's personal laptop, are the responsibility of counsel, and should be handled in a manner similar to the attorney's exhibit boards or models. This responsibility should not be assumed by the court. Contradicting this approach could expose the court to myriad unnecessary procedural and support problems.
Exploring the Major Components of the High-tech Courtroom
Evidence Presentation
A typical evidence presentation system includes an evidence or
document camera for physical material, a connection for attorneys'
(and possibly the judge's and witness's) computers, an illustration
device or pen, and the ability to create a hard copy of whatever
is being displayed to the jury. Different types of playback devices,
such as a VCR and audio cassette deck, often are included. A DVD
player is another device that may be added in the near future.
When integrated into a single stand-alone unit, such as DEPS
(Digital Evidence Presentation System,) the system serves as the
"control center" for all video and digital display in the courtroom.
The current jury pool increasingly is composed of generation "X" (and "Y") jurors, whose learning style is centered around television and computer-generated information. As such, justice engineers have adapted court design to support the full range of media exhibit options available today. Individualized, high-resolution flat panel monitors create a comfortable, easy viewing experience for jurors. For remote testimony, a high-definition plasma screen anchors the remote witness to the traditional jury box. Roll-about large screen televisions for videoconferencing provides a less expensive viewing alternative.
Videoconferencing
Videoconferencing provides the ability for remote participants
to be involved in courtroom procedures. At the same time, it places
a significant design premium on how the conferencing system
is implemented. One would want all parts of the proceedings, i.e.,
video display of participants, evidence, and real-time and any
visual material, to be displayed to the "far" or other end of
the videoconference. Operation should be seamless and easily executed.
Issues of audio inputs and amplification in the courtroom must
be addressed, as well as problems of echo cancellation and feedback.
Videoconferencing is a paradigm of some of the most basic issues
of courtroom integration. Because we are attempting to "replicate"
the courtroom to an outside party, all of the visceral and
visual aspects of the courtroom experience must be conveyed
as simply and effectively as possible. For this reason, it is
best to employ a "hub" based system to deliver court-wide access
and transparent integration into the courtroom. Standard "roll
about" units are limited in their ability to transmit an experience
of similar quality.
Videoconferencing offers a practical alternative to the risk associated with transport of unruly jailed defendants. It offers comfort and security outside of the courtroom to frightened juvenile witnesses, and a timesaving alternative for expert testimony. A comprehensive courtroom system supports simultaneous transmission to multiple remote sites. It provides high-speed data transfer to multiple courtrooms, conference rooms, the judge's chamber and training locations. Recent adaptation of CAT5 twisted-pair technologies for court videoconferencing systems provides an economical solution to the costly, difficult installations of the not to distant past.
The Record
Real-time
court reporting offers the most efficient solution for preservation
of the record during complex or lengthy criminal litigation. Data
is broadcast to the judge, witness and attorney tables via CAT5
transmission cabling and easy connecting RJ45 telephone jacks.
This format is compatible with any of the currently available
transcription packages. Some courts require the display of the
"dirty copy" of the record on courtroom monitors in anticipation
of potential ADA situations. Sophisticated indexing of the record
is critical for quick access to relevant testimony and evidence.
Gateway technology to broadcast proceedings over the Internet
also should be considered to facilitate broader access to important
cases.
Alternative record-making options include digital audio and video recording systems. These methods use microphones and cameras to electronically capture testimony and courtroom activities, and record them onto a digital media. Perhaps the newest-record making option is court reporter-controlled voice recognition. A Stenomask Reporter dictates the testimony into a computer, which converts the person's voice into text and displays it, much like stenotype reporter's real-time transcription.
Audio Enhancement
Audio in the courtroom tends to be ignored. This is a grave error. Careful audio design and implementation is critical for the delivery of consistent, high quality sound for uniform communication among all trial participants. Special consideration must be given to optimized sound for the "virtual witness," such as an appearance via videoconferencing, where echo cancellation is often a problem. It may be necessary to create a complete audio and video record, with language interpretation, that complies with ADA standards for hearing impairment. "Room-based" audio enhancement and the need to integrate the court reporter into the audio distribution is required. Audio, in essence, is key to the design foundation of the modern courtroom.
Data Access
Access to in-court and external sources of data needs to be considered
as part of the initial design process. This is both a technical
and policy issue. For example, does the court provide Internet
access at counsel tables? The pathways for data (voice and ISDN
grade access) and network connectivity should be considered for
the judge, counsel and court staff. At a minimum, the judge should
have access to case and docket information (along with the deputy).
From a design perspective, the pathways count. This applies to
voice/phone access as well.
Gallery/Public
It is important to consider what the gallery and press will have
access to from the electronic information base of the courtroom.
It is interesting to note that before the advent of electronic
trials the only media concerns involved camera placement and finding
an available seat for an artist or reporter. With the advent of
electronic trials, the discussion of access has become more complex
and requires policy and design consideration.
Control
Control is a critical issue to the judiciary. In reality, old
rules seem to apply from an evidentiary perspective at trial (as
observed by the judges panel at the recent Courtroom 21 Forum
on Technology, held in conjunction with the NCSC in Williamsburg,
September 1998), but technical control is still important. This
includes a "judge kill switch" for video and audio evidence display
(again, one must consider the videoconference and record-creation
part of this design) as well as overall control interfaces for
inputs, display, playback, etc. A single programmable interface
with multilevel access and security features maximizes ease of
use and seamless operation of all systems.
Furniture
This may seem strange to some people, but technology places a
burden on furniture functionality and design. These considerations
are further complicated in retrofit design situations. Issues
of lines of sight and hiding unsightly and disturbing cables are
readily apparent. Consideration should be given to maximum design
flexibility in anticipation of future technology upgrades. For
example, jury rails modified a number of years ago to accommodate
full-size monitors become unsightly shelving with the advent of
flat-panel jury monitors.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure design for new and existing facilities has been
a major challenge over the years. No matter how wide the conduit,
there never seems to be enough room! The issue here is two-fold,
relative to the rapid increase in the number of required connections,
(and hence, cables,) as well as the need for different kinds of
cables to support multiple technologies, such as audio, data,
video, etc. In the past this often resulted in infrastructure
design that was antiquated minutes after installation. There are
two options currently available to resolve this issue. The first
is to construct "raised floor" court wells. This is a misguided
approach, however, as it is better to sink the well and make it
level with the rest of the room. A second approach is to adopt
a universal cabling standard (UCS) for all infrastructure. This
is especially important in existing facilities. Category 5 (CAT5)
network cabling supports this universal interface combined with
electric cabling. Over a single type of cable, one can transmit
audio, video, data, real-time, high-resolution computer output
and even electrical power. There are also implementations for
"under carpet" CAT5 for retrofit courtroom applications, which
avoids costly building construction.
Issues for Further Consideration
Training and Education
Education is critical to the successful implementation and use
of a High Tech Courtroom. Training needs to accommodate the different
constituencies' requirements and levels of sophistication. Interactive
multimedia training, videotapes and hands-on "mock trial" simulations
seem to work best. Recognizing the importance of practical technology
experience, the author, in collaboration with the National Institute
for Trial Advocacy (NITA), presented "Working with Courtroom Technology."
This "first of its kind" program integrated NITA's traditional
expertise in advocacy and jury presentation skills development
with cutting-edge technology, to enormously enhance trial presentation
and argument. Participants had an opportunity to explore the full
persuasive potential of multimedia evidence presentation.
Similarly, the recently opened National Advocacy Center in South Carolina houses 10 mock courtrooms, equipped with the most advanced portable DEPS systems currently available. Law firms, law schools, and organizations such as the National White Collar Crime Institute are actively planning the installation of fully integrated mock courtrooms for education and training. Proficiency in the use of legal technology has become the new standard for advocacy in the American Courtroom.
Preservation of Evidence
As more cases become purely electronic, the issue of record preservation
will become a greater design consideration. Electronic record
preservation evokes intriguing policy and practice issues relative
to direct access by the jury during deliberation, as well as for
electronic packaging of the appellate record. This ultimately
will create a need to revisit the underlying design assumptions
of the High Tech Courtroom. We should consider implementing the
entire environment as a systems and information architecture rather
than the "display-push" environment, as it is currently implemented
throughout the United States. The non-U.S. models at The Hague
and Australia may be of increasing interest.
This overview represents the current "state of the art" for the High Tech Courtroom. A most notable example of the successful implementation of these advanced technologies is the US District Court - Northern District of Ohio in Cleveland. The Cleveland Courthouse represents the successful marriage of technology and the American justice system. It offers practical solutions to the challenges of increasing caseloads and decreasing financial resources. The effectiveness of integrated high tech courtrooms is being proven every day, in courtrooms across the country. Lessons learned from current implementations help build our model for future projects. These are wonderful times for technology augmented courtrooms. As we push the envelope, refine design ideas and use these systems to make justice more accessible, we will reduce litigation time and provide an environment that meets the needs of today's media savvy participants.
Samuel H. Solomon
Contact:
Samuel H. Solomon
President & CEO
DOAR Communications, Inc.
Rockville Centre, New York
Phone: (516) 536-6400
Fax: (516) 536-6868
E-mail: sam@doar.com
Martin E. Gruen
Contact:
Martin E. Gruen
President
Applied Legal Technologies, Inc.
Williamsburg, Virginia
Phone: (973) 586-0335
Fax: (973) 586-2422
E-mail: mgruen@msn.com
Biographical Information
This biographical information may date from as far back as 1999. Please keep in mind that it may no longer be accurate.
Martin E. Gruen
Martin Gruen is president of Applied Legal Technologies, Inc. As a national expert in court-related high technology legal uses, Mr. Gruen has designed many of the nation's leading state-of-the-art court technology installations and has served as a consultant to several of the nation's major legal technology manufacturers. Additionally, Mr. Gruen is the deputy director of Courtroom 21, the world's most technologically advanced courtroom. Since the project's inception, Mr. Gruen has directed, installed and designed all the technology systems within the courtroom. His extensive experience with courthouse electronic systems includes federal, state, county and municipal level courts as well as law firms and law schools.
Samuel H. Solomon
Samuel H. Solomon is the president of DOAR Communications, a firm specializing in courtroom presentation technologies. He previously held senior technology positions at McGraw-Hill and Lehman Brothers. He has given numerous presentations on demonstrative evidence and technology and has written several articles for legal journals and magazines.