Reflections on Technology in the Courts

Press here to go to complete answers.

The National Center for State Courts Chat system is supported by the TIES grant from the State Justice Institute.

To merely read the comments on the Chat system, all you have to do is press the GUEST button on the Welcome page.  However, if you would like to participate, please take a few minutes and register your name and create a password that you will hopefully remember.   Please use your real name on this system.

Thanks in advance,
Jim McMillan, Director of the Court Technology Laboratory

Curtis L. DeClue, Director of Integrated Justice Services, Justice and Public Safety Practice, UNISYS Corporation:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
The growth of the Internet has surprised even its most enthusiastic supporters. It is unequaled as a tool for making information available to a wide audience. The Internet has greatly enhanced the ability of courts to serve their constituency by providing easier access to court information. At the same time, this technology enables courts to provide this improved service in a more efficient and cost effective manner. Although many courts have begun using the Internet, I believe the justice community has only begun to "scratch the surface" of its potential as a tool not only for communication, but for conducting the business of the courts. Currently some of the most exciting initiatives in court technology involve the use of the Internet for electronic filing of small claims, jury pool management and payment of parking violations.

Despite the growth of the Internet, there are (and probably always will be) many members of society who have not experienced the technology revolution in their homes or in the workplace, and for whom the term "computer" causes a degree of anxiety. Court-dedicated kiosks in government offices, libraries, shopping centers and other public places, with instructional video technology, can bring the benefits of better access to the courts even to the computer-phobic.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
I believe the Internet has influenced the way courts conduct business in two ways. First, the growth in the popularity of the Internet in general has heightened the technology awareness of everyone, including the judiciary. In many ways the Internet has brought computing into the mass consciousness. By simply watching their own children "surfin’ the Net" at home, many judges, court administrators, clerks of court and attorneys have become more attuned to the possibilities provided by computer technology.

Second, the Internet is creating a communications revolution which will finally tie together all of the elements of the justice system. Much is being done to develop integrated justice systems, but too often such systems serve only to tie together the "official" justice agencies: courts, prosecutors, public defenders and law enforcement departments. The efficient operation of the justice system, both civil and criminal, depends upon the involvement of the private bar. By providing a fast and efficient method of communication, the Internet fosters the integration of everyone involved in the administration of justice, public and private.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
What do you suppose is the reaction of a member of the public when told that their personal injury case will not go to trial for three years? When it takes half an hour on the phone to find out when and where to appear for a traffic citation? When the clerk accepting a small claim filing is surrounded by stacks of files with papers stuffed everywhere? Naturally the reaction is one of skepticism that anything will ever get done, let alone that justice will prevail. In short, technology will improve public trust and confidence in the courts by enabling the courts to operate in a manner which reflects the same type of efficiency, timeliness and effectiveness which the public expects of any other service provider.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
The correct answer to this question is different for every court. There is no magic about information systems and automation. They are simply tools to enable courts to successfully achieve their business goals and objectives in the most efficient, cost-effective manner. Therefore the focus of any automation project should first be the types of problems which are preventing the court from achieving its optimal level of organizational success. The court should then focus first and foremost on information systems which address these problems.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
The answer to this question needs some qualification. Because courts, for many reasons, avoid implementing the newest and most advanced technology, one must distinguish between what is being talked about at the leading of information technology and what is actually being implemented in the courts. For example, there are no longer any real technological barriers to truly integrated justice information systems. Unfortunately, however, because of a lack of resources, executive leadership, or political will, very few such systems have been implemented. Therefore, the most exciting technology developments of 1998 might not be implemented by courts until well into the future. Having said this, I feel that two technology developments will receive a great deal of attention in 1998. The first is rather complex, the data repository or data warehouse concept; the second is more prosaic, voice enabled applications.

Once the goal of an integrated justice system is achieved, justice agencies will find themselves awash in data—not information; not knowledge; just data. Data warehouse tools work with the various database engines which support information management systems to bring together and organize all of the data from the various parts of the system. With all of this data properly organized, the data warehouse concept permits a court to utilize sophisticated analytical tools to turn raw data into meaningful information, which in turn supports the decision making process. Such analysis can improve virtually all areas of court operations: case management, resource and personnel allocation, planning for new courts and judges, budgeting, facilities planning, etc.

They have been around for several years, but I believe that voice enabled applications have finally achieved a level of practical use. Several years ago at a Court Management Institute program I had the opportunity to try a voice enabled word processor. It required a very precise and slow manner of speech and even then it produced a high number of errors. Although a wonderful development for those with physical limitations, it was simply too cumbersome for widespread use. I recently tried a new voice enabled word processor and what a difference! Although not even a "top of the line" voice recognition system, it recorded near natural speech with almost no errors. With so many persons doing there own word processing, judges included, I think this is finally an application ready for prime time.

Darryl Evans, President, Evans CaseLoad Inc., E-mail: devans@caseload.com:

Without a doubt I would say that the Internet has the most promise. Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems are easily accessible to the public, but lack the rich content available from other mediums. On the other side, kiosks have been very helpful in disseminating rich information to the public. The limiting factors to its success have been the hardware costs and the limited geographical scope that each unit can service.

While the Internet has not come near to the public adoption rate of the telephone, I predict that by the year 2001 the Internet will be THE method for the public to communicate with organizations such as courts. The rich content possibilities are currently being successfully explored by many courts. While the development costs of a court web site can be as expensive as some IVR or kiosk systems, the deployment costs are absorbed by the public with existing general purpose computers (i.e. PCs).

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
To date, very few courts have been impacted by the Internet in their day-to-day business. Until the adoption of electronic filing and other "killer" applications, the Internet will serve three purposes:

1. dissemination of information via web sites;
2. access to legal research databases; and my personal favorite
3. communication within the legal community via e-mail and newsgroups.

It still amazes me that a Judge or Court Administrator can ask a question via a Newsgroup or Listserv and receive 10 responses within 48 hours from counterparts located around the world. There is a very real electronic-Justice community developing out there.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
The times are certainly changing if we can consider technology as a facilitator of public trust. The efficient access to information can instill great confidence and at the same time breed public mistrust if significant measures are not enacted to secure sensitive information.

Technology is useless unless it serves a specific purpose. This holds true for both the private and public sectors. Always start by defining your goals and then reach for the technologies that will help you attain them. If your goal is to increase revenue, provide information access services; decrease expenses, improve operating efficiencies by spending on networks or case management tools; decrease Receivables, consider direct deposit systems, etc.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
Commercially available Intranet-based Court Management solutions will start appearing by the end of 1998. Its importance will be seen in the drastic reduction in operating costs for geographically disbursed organizations. While the use of personal computers and client/server solutions has decreased the operating costs of equivalent mainframe systems, it has increased the maintenance costs of those individual PCs. The web browser will play an important role in providing an organization’s stakeholders access to information with reduced costs of deployment.

Another exciting technology which will continue to grow in 1998 is electronic filing and electronic commerce. We are just scratching the surface of these "killer" applications for the Justice Community. Look for Java and other technologies to bring this facility into the spotlight in 1998.

John D. Ferry, Jr., State Court Administrator, Michigan Supreme Court, E-mail: ferryj@state.mi.us:

1. What technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
Notwithstanding the tremendous advances in network technology and those technologies associated with the Internet, the use of video technology through regular television outlets holds the most promise for "connecting" courts to the public. In making this assessment, I distinguish the public as our entire constituency, vs. those in the public who have a specific need to interact with the courts.

In general, we know from a variety of opinion surveys conducted by public survey concerns and by courts themselves that the public has very little understanding of the traditional role of the judiciary as a separate branch of government and its functions as an independent fact-finding institution and a source of protection of individual rights.

It is important to increase public understanding of the traditional role of the judiciary and the manner in which that role has been carried out, in order to participate effectively in decisions regarding the potential changes in that role, and as importantly, the manner in which that role should be fulfilled. The use of video technology in various public media hold the most short-term promise to increase public understanding.

The challenge is not in the technology but rather in understanding how to make the best use of the technology and its applications and to persuade those managing the resources of the judiciary that educating the public and opinion leaders that an understanding of the judiciary is an important priority.

This challenge, for example, will inevitably mean opening doors to the inner functioning of the courts, expanded coverage of trials and a willingness to provide informed interpretation of court proceedings and background information, and educational video presentations geared toward public audiences.

In the long run, as more of the public has regular access and dependence on public telecommunications networks such as the Internet, the use of interactive telecommunications will have an even greater impact, particularly as means for categorizing and filtering available information becomes more sophisticated. That will be particularly true for those in the public that have a specific need or potential need for interacting with the judiciary.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way the courts conduct business?
Overall, I don't believe that the Internet has influenced the manner in which courts have done business. Even when the Internet is used as a tool for information for the judges, court managers, and court staff; or where courts have used the Internet as an information tool for the public, the methods used in courts are substantially the same. In many cases, however, the Internet has provided a useful tool for public information for court users and a tool for judges and court managers to gather information or transmit information.

The Internet does have potential for enhancing the delivery of information to and from courts through the use of electronic filing and e-mail, and making courts and their regular users somewhat more efficient. But these enhancements are just what they are— more efficient ways to do essentially the same thing, faster.

There is potential for the Internet to profoundly affect the way in which courts do business through developing new processes which take advantage of the strength of the communication capacity that it provides. One such example may be the use of the Internet to provide live access to court proceedings. Another might be to provide an alternative means of fact finding, particularly for minor offenses—for example, conducting hearings on small claims or traffic offenses through the Internet (subject to certain rules and with availability of appeal, perhaps).

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
First, by providing better means for education about courts, including such things as web pages, electronic and/or televised community forums monitored by judges, lawyers and/or court managers to answer questions that the public may have, either regarding their own circumstances or regarding ongoing, highly publicized trials.

Second, by providing better access to information about the work of courts, and information regarding specific cases or matters pending before courts.

Third, by streamlining current processes for the convenience of litigants and other clients by permitting electronic access to information about their own cases, or to conduct business with the courts (such as the use of electronic data and funds transfers, and alternative trial or fact finding processes such as those mentioned above.).

Fourth, the effective, efficient and responsible use of technology for enforcement and other critical court functions (such as delivery of records and information, enforcement of sanctions, conduct of trials and hearings, etc.).

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on
Courts need to first pay attention to fundamental design of court processes to meet the needs of their consumers, and then determine the type of technology applications that fit those needs. We see too often the drive to acquire the latest or best technology without any thorough understanding of the need to evolve the mission and supporting functions of the courts to meet the changing needs of their communities.

Because of the rapid pace of change in society generally and the blinding pace of change in technology, any technology that is acquired and applied should be flexible enough to evolve as much as possible. Although technology in one sense is getting cheaper, the associated costs of maintenance in terms of work force and customer training, replacement costs, security, and information currency and management are likely to continue to grow with the expanding capacity of technology to store, create, analyze and deliver information.

5. What is the most exciting technology development you expect to see in 1998?
I believe the maturing of the Internet based hardware and software that will increase our ability to search and filter information from rapidly expanding in-house and open data bases will bring significant differences to the way in which we approach data management, both for internal data bases and public or open data bases. The maturing of technologies associated with data warehousing will increase the value of these technologies, and could challenge the personal computer in terms of the impact on information technology. With that change comes staggering responsibilities for developing standards for security, for the format of data regarding judicial activity, and the currency and accuracy of the information for which courts are responsible.

James R. Hargreaves, Senior Consultant, IBM Public Safety, Justice & Identification, E-mail: jhar@us.ibm.com:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
I think that the answer to this question will vary according to the segment of the population upon which we focus. The vast majority of the people who interact with the courts do so to deal with traffic tickets, minor criminal offenses, or to collect support, appear as witnesses or jurors etc. Most of these people do not have ready access to computers nor the training necessary to be able to use them effectively. I believe automated voice response systems, video links and computer kiosks will be the most useful to these people. A great deal of the public's time as well as the time of court personnel, is taken up in just supplying information. How much do I still owe on my ticket? When is my court appearance? In what courtroom is the case of State v. Maguire going to be held? As courts continue to computerize their operations or increase the sophistication of existing systems, a great deal of this business can he handled through telephone calls routed to automated voice response systems that in turn search the court's data base and give "verbal" responses.

Computer kiosks linked directly to the court and strategically placed around the jurisdiction in such places as shopping malls, can also be powerful tools for linking the public to the courts. Carefully designed interfaces incorporating touch screens, key pads, credit card readers, recorded verbal instructions and multi-lingual capability where appropriate, can allow a large segment of the public to transact a wide range of business with the court quickly and conveniently.

I think that video is an underutilized technology in the courts. To date, it has mostly been utilized to connect a jail and the court for the purpose of doing arraignments etc. In large, urban jurisdictions as well as geographically large rural ones, why not have remote courtrooms where people can appear in person and the judge appears by video? In most cases, these courtrooms could be small, perhaps located in some public building and staffed by a part-time clerk who can coordinate the appearances with the central court location. While providing convenience to the public, I believe this use of video can also be cost effective for the court when one takes into account the costs of facilities, staffing, travel etc. associated with either building ever larger courthouses or having more judges situated in remote locations.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
I believe that for most courts, the Internet has yet to have any substantial impact on the way they do business. To put things in perspective, of the thousands of state, county and municipal courts in the United States, there are only about two hundred with Web pages collected on the link maintained by the National Center for State Courts. For the majority of the courts that do have Web pages, it appears that they are used mostly for supplying operating information such as court location, contact telephone numbers, court rules, explanation of various court processes and, perhaps, forms to download. Some have searchable schedules. A few courts do provide interactively, such as the City of Seattle municipal court, where a person can pay his or her traffic ticket over the Internet through the use of a credit card.

Just because a court does not have a Web page, however, does not mean that courts are not making some use of the Internet. The use of E-mail in the courts has grown rapidly. Besides internal communications, many courts use E-mail to communicate externally with attorneys and other governmental agencies. Some judges also find the Internet useful for research.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
I believe that the biggest contribution that technology can make to improving the public trust and confidence in the courts is in making it possible to provide timely and accurate information to those who find themselves involved in the court process in one fashion or another. During my 20 years on the bench, it was my experience that people expect the court, whether through a judge, clerk or other staff person, to have the answer to whatever question might arise, and to have that answer virtually instantaneously. Whether such an expectation is realistic or not is totally beside the point. Untimely, incomplete or inaccurate responses by the court do not meet the public expectation. As courts employ more sophisticated information management technology in their operations and make the information stored in those systems more easily and quickly available to both court personnel and the public, they will move closer to meeting the expectations of the public and, consequently, improve the public's level of trust and confidence.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
This is like asking, "What kind of a new car should judges focus on?" I think in both cases the answer is, "It depends on what you want to do with it." In most cases, courts are probably going to want to focus first on having a good electronic case management system in place. Once they have that, they can then drive other systems such as automated voice response, information kiosks, Internet connections etc., off of the information stored in the case management system. Likewise, the court can then use the case management system to electronically exchange relevant information with other systems external to the court, such as police, jail, prosecutor, parole or probation, public defender or various social agencies.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
Given the ever-accelerating rate of technology development, I wouldn't even try to guess what this might be. There is however, one new product incorporating an interesting new technology development that I expect to be out early this year. I think it has the potential to be very useful to a wide range of people in business and the professions, including the law. Every time I think about this device, I think of more people who will find it useful. This device is a computer that looks to be very much like the typical thin, rectangular yellow pad folder that most lawyers use. When you flip open the cover, inside is even the usual yellow pad. What is unusual is that as you write or draw with your pen or pencil on the yellow pad pages, the computer under the pad picks up the images being produced on the paper and stores them in the computer. The stored, hand written text can be automatically converted to print text, edited as with the usual word processing software, and even indexed. Information collected on this computer is transferred by cable or infrared device to a personal computer for long term storage.

I think that this dual recording and storage approach of paper/electronic makes lots of sense in our current world where the courts, as well as the business community, are in a transition period where both paper and electronic files can serve useful purposes.

Dennis Miller, Vice President of Product Engineering, Progressive Solutions, Inc., E-mail: dennism@gwmail.prosolution.com:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
There are two technology categories which hold the most promise. First are remote electronic access tools, including using touch-tone telephone, dial-up, and WEB browser access methods. Electronic filing—both PC and kiosk—both move a part of the data input burden outside of the court and increase customer satisfaction. The usefulness and appeal of these tools will vary according to court type as well as by subsets of the "public."

With so many court and court-related agencies responsible for capturing, creating, maintaining and distributing information of interest to the public, it is understandably problematic for the average citizen-taxpayer to know for certain where a particular query should be directed. The second technology category which addresses a critical public access need is data warehousing. Properly implemented, a data warehouse provides transparent, common-interface access to the desired data, independent of source, original format or ownership of the data.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
The broad acceptance and phenomenal growth of the Internet has raised the public's expectations of nearly every commercial, educational and governmental organization. In general terms, this means that the public increasingly expects free, easy-to-understand, 24 hour access to whatever information they desire, which information must be instantaneously updated, clearly and attractively presented, and easily taken away (printed, downloaded, etc.).

Though courts are only beginning to feel the effects of this shift in expectations, the wave is definitely coming. The impact on the courts falls into three main headings: on the policy side, some jurisdictions may need to make statutory and rule changes, and settle the issue of fees and cost allocation. On the practice and procedures side, many courts must change their institutional definitions of "timely data input," free and universal access, " etc. On the technology side, the information being sought has to be in electronic form, and the access infrastructure has to be put in place. All of this represents significant change, the speed—and collateral impact—of which will be directly influenced by the public's Internet-induced demand for "everything I might want, available to me right now, provided to me for free!"

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
Because public trust and confidence in the courts is a function of the public's perception of how well the courts are rendering justice technology can help only to the extent that it can positively affect that perception. Properly implemented and used, court and case management tools manifestly improve a court's ability and capacity to manage its WORKLOAD. These technologies can improve efficiency, accuracy, and predictability, all of which are crucial to maintaining the public trust. Modern systems require individual, area and department accountability, providing on-demand audit trails and many other types of management reports.

When technology makes a citizen-taxpayer's personal contact with the court more convenient (WEB or touch-tone phone query from home at 9:30 p.m., for example), and when the information sought is easily obtained and understood (intuitive query interfaces to integrated databases), it follows that her/his perception of the court improves. Further, the very breadth and immediacy of access implied by these technologies while help to further demystify the workings of the courts, closing the distance between the public and the court.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
Two thoughts come to mind. From a tactical perspective, and given that funding difficulties don't appear to be easing, priority should be given to information systems which deliver immediate, demonstrable benefits to the court and its customers. At the moment, tools like WEB-based access may fill the bill. From a strategic perspective, courts should make technology investments which are based on open standards, and which can be integrated and interfaced easily and repeatedly. When a court purchases an imaging system which doesn't take advantage of the indexing and query power of the court's case management system, the court is creating unnecessary burdens. When a court implements traffic and civil systems which don't share a common party file, duplication of effort and the potential for erroneous data increase.

Purchasing technology a piece at a time is fine, provided that the court is working from a sound and oft updated technology plan which balances the tactical and the strategic. The basic building blocks of the system and the plan must include:

• Case records
• Document management, production and distribution
• Financial management
• Calendars and scheduling
• Public access
• True integration
• Open standards at the platform, operating system and database management system levels

The court which does not acquire technology according to a plan will find limit satisfaction—and potentially a great deal of embarrassment. Adding the newest roof design to a house which lacks the recommended foundation and framing doesn't bode well for the architect or the owner.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
Out at the bleeding edge, there are any number of exciting technologies which we watch and study closely. However, as a court solutions provider, for us "exciting technology developments" are those which we and our partners can actually deliver to our court customers to enable them to better fulfill their respective missions. There are several candidates which we will deliver in 1998, but based on almost a universally enth7usiastic reaction from our customers, WEB-based public access is the winner.

WEB Public Access (WEB PAC) provides name, case number and citation number access to anyone with access to a standard WEB browser. Though the technology components aren't particularly new, this simple application has huge potential for relieving pressure on a court's phone and counter staffing. We will continue to enhance and enrich the product, but even in its first release (in April) WEB PAC will have immediate and sustained impact.

David L. Mower, Judge, Sixth Judicial District, E-mail: dmower@email.utcourts.gov:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
Web sites containing court rules, directories, links to other sites and downloadable forms.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
I don’t think the Internet has had much influence on the way courts conduct business with its customers, i.e., lawyers and litigants. This type of business is still conducted as it has been in the past—on a paper-based, notice-and-opportunity-to-be-heard, face-to-face basis. The telephone has had some impact, especially fax and conference calling technologies. But the telephone is its own network and is not the Internet.

To the extent that the Internet has fostered the use of E-mail, there has been a significant influence on the way courts conduct their own internal business. E-mail reduces the need to play "telephone tag," and it fosters communication by allowing an idea to be conceived, articulated and communicated in a matter of seconds.

There has also been a significant impact resulting from the use of "links" or "hypertext links." Again, this relates primarily to internal operations. Nevertheless, the impact is significant because it elevates legal research to new and higher levels of ease and thoroughness.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
Courts have the reputation of operating in a rarefied atmosphere of fear, dignity, respect and obedience. It is a good reputation to have because it engenders effective dispute resolution and lends stability to our society.

There is a dark side of this reputation which includes fear of pitfalls for the unwary and of the application of arcane rules and enigmatic procedures. Some believe that the atmosphere is so rarefied that only $200-per-hour lawyers can survive there. This part of the Courts’ reputation promotes frustration, distrust and lack of confidence.

Utah has rules of procedure. The appendix to the rules includes a set of forms. I suspect that all states are so equipped.

Many cannot afford a lawyer’s help (as much as it might be needed). The existence of the rules is a well-kept secret outside of the lawyers’ offices. Few people know where to find them, much less how to read and interpret them.

We cannot solve all the problems. We can’t force litigants to hire lawyers. We spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with unrepresented litigants. We would do ourselves a favor by making the rules of procedure and the forms more accessible. We would increase public trust and confidence by doing so.

A Web site containing the rules and offering downloadable forms provides this accessibility.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
Document handling systems should receive top priority. For example, when a document is filed it should be scanned and indexed. Whenever someone requests a copy, it could be retrieved and then e-mailed, faxed or printed, all from a computer keyboard. Payment could be made with a credit card. The entire transaction would take a couple of minutes.

Another facet of document handling has to do with the concept of an interface between case data processing systems and text processing systems. This I will explain. Utah Courts currently use a data processing system which collects and stores data about cases—filing date, case type, party names, event tracking, etc. However, the only documents that the system will produce are those which have been hard-coded into the software.

It is impossible for the end-user to create a document using a word processor and then merge individual case data into it. Requests to the programmers for new documents are given low priority. Hence, the end-user is forced to create documents from scratch and without the benefit of the merge capability of most word processors.

Even the documents the system will produce are of limited value because the only output option is to the printer. If fax or e-mail were available, it would be helpful.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
I’m hoping for significant development in two areas: digital signature and office intranet. Each of these topics is exciting to me and each has the potential for significant change in the way we do business.

For as long as I can recall, commerce has depended on a person’s signature as the best proof of intention to act or to be bound. Until now, a signature could only exist on a piece of paper or some other physical object.

Electronic "documents," such as a contract or letter sent by e-mail, cannot be "signed" in the usual sense of the word, i.e., putting pen to paper and making a unique mark recognizable as belonging to the author. This limitation is a significant obstacle to the conduct of any type of electronic commerce.

Happily, strong impetus for the use of reliable digital signatures is being brought to bear by the government and others. Once the digital signature barrier falls, we should see an explosion of electronic commerce, which includes doing business with the government. We should be able to file all types of documents: tax returns, license applications, court documents, etc. We should be able to pay fines and fees, to search for and retrieve public documents, etc., etc. For further information see http://www.uelp.org, http://www.state.ut.us, http://www.ncsc.dni.us (including the JEDDI homepage).

The use of the office intranet is also exciting. In Utah we make limited use of this technology. I hope we will do more. At present we distribute minutes of governing board meetings by E-mail. We are implementing an E-mail system of announcing and registering for training conferences. We hope to replace this with a click-on-the-button registration page on our intranet. There has been discussion and planning to make training and conference materials available online through the intranet.

Since it is "intra" rather than "inter" the system will only be available in-house and thus can be tailored to the needs of our organization. However, an intranet uses the same tools that make the Internet so valuable—online availability of information to multiple users, linked documents, e-mail, chat rooms, conference rooms, etc. So, we can have Internet benefits in a system that is just for us.

Moira O'Leary Rowley, Court Product Manager, SCT Government Systems, E-mail: mrowley@SCTCORP.COM:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
The Internet, telephony (interactive voice and touch tone response, telephone notification systems, etc.), video conferencing, televised proceedings (where permitted) and touch screen kiosks.

While the most frequent customers of the courts will benefit tremendously from Internet connectivity, we have to remember that not all people have computers or access to computers. Providing access to justice to as wide a segment of our community as possible requires that we employ a variety of tools and technologies to make courts more accessible to the public.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
Courts became accustomed to much faster communications, information gathering and decision making through access to Internet e-mail and research tools. In the past few years the courts have evolved beyond being merely users of information on the Internet, to becoming providers of information. Consequently, members of the public and commercial users of court information (private attorneys, prosecutors, public defenders, probation and parole, corrections, social service agencies, title companies, credit reporting bureaus, etc.) have increased expectations of the range of information they can get from courts and the speed at which that information will be made available to them. In addition to providing courts with the means to widely disseminate timely and accurate information, the Internet provides a platform for interaction between the courts and their many customers, public and private. This platform is only beginning to be explored in areas such as electronic filing through web enabled applications, automated notice generation tied to case management systems, and intranets that pull together previously separated systems, agencies and people.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
Accessibility, accountability, accuracy and responsiveness. It goes back to the first two principles of court case management: first—to do individual justice in individual cases, and second—to appear to do individual justice in individual cases.

Interaction with the court system can be an intimidating experience for many members of the public. Court contact is frequently part of an already stressful situation, and it can be made even more difficult by the unfamiliar rules, routines and lexicon of the judicial system. Even for the well initiated, the court system can be a maze of paperwork, deadlines, scheduling conflicts and delays.

By using open, flexible and powerful case management systems, integrated with solid communication and access technologies such as telephony, electronic filing and notification, video conferencing, and the Internet, our courts can provide to the public a readily accessible and easily understood forum for timely, well-informed resolution of disputes and adjudication of charges.

We are most likely to engender trust and confidence among the people we serve when the public knows what to expect from courts, when to expect it, and where to find the information they need when they need.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
Open, Open, Open

Widely accepted standards of data, language and protocols make it not just possible, but eminently feasible to link a myriad of complimentary systems and deploy integrated solutions within the court environment. The extent to which these solutions are available to the courts and the expense of integrating those technologies depends primarily upon the courts’ selection of open, standard technologies.

The underlying case management systems and databases are the critical framework for linking and launching related systems that improve the efficiency and accessibility of courts. In that sense, it is still critical to choose flexible, broad-based and powerful case management tools, and continue to refine those tools.

There is one cautionary note that is included as an aside to our vision of the bright and glorious future. By the publication of this article, all courts should have either determined that their various information systems are Year 2000 compliant, or have made plans to revise or replace those systems. There really is no more time to wait on this issue.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
There are so many exciting developments right now: increased band width, super-fast modems, web-based applications, thin client deployment, intuitive workflow engines linked to imaging, object oriented application development. Still, the most exciting development in 1998 may not be in any single technology, but rather in the refinement of existing technologies and in commercial providers’ ability to better leverage and integrate the technologies that are already available.

The full potential of the Internet will start to be realized thanks to portable, Internet based programs using Java and Microsoft's Active-X. Distributed communications standards, such as CORBA, will finally allow different systems to "talk" to each other in a predictable manner. Electronic filing and data exchange will be easier than ever thanks to standard, portable document formats and low cost commodity viewers. The security of Internet data will be tighter than ever thanks to 128 bit encryption algorithms that are unbreakable by human or computer. The standardization of desktop technologies will mean seamless integration of information systems applications and complementary technologies such as imaging and workflow.

As exciting as the technology itself is the growing vendor focus on developing applications that automate entire processes from a user-centric point of view. With the emergence of common languages, data formats, interfaces and protocols, we will see an increased level of cooperation among technology vendors. Ultimately this will allow the courts to concentrate more on their own customers and the business at hand and less on the mechanics of their business tools and systems.

Ernie Sego, President, Justice Systems, Inc., E-mail: esego@justicesystems.com:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
Courts of the future will be able to offer better services to the public through the use of the Internet and additional Web-based applications in order to access legacy data. This will open up information and systems without adding additional phone lines or more office space. Key technologies to make this possible include (1) expanding the bandwidth of the Internet, (2) providing faster modems, (3) providing better security through the use of authentication and cryptography, and (4) building a front end to legacy data through JAVA/JAVA Beans or by using Active X to put the program logic where it belongs—on the server—and keep the client side thin for better performance and higher reliability. Java applets in a browser could talk to a database on a server or an Active X application could generate Web pages on the fly. Web applications of the future will provide a centralized approach to court data, permit electronic filing, and allow public access on demand.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
The Internet has given the public a new way to interface with all businesses. The courts are no different than any other corporation the public may deal with. In today's society many people prefer (and expect) to do business over the Internet. This push by the public is beginning to persuade courts to automate their case management systems in an attempt to meet the demand. For instance, courts are now going to computerized case management systems that cannot only manage cases in the traditional manner, but can also allow access to certain data through the Internet. It may even have the capability to allow filings over the Internet (depending on the state/federal signature requirements). With the courts’ cooperation, the public will soon be able to do many things from home: view when court dates have been scheduled, get current information of amounts owed, and even make payments using e-cash.

The Internet is an easy, anonymous way for a person to get information and conduct business. The public likes that. The courts will like that as well. It can cut down the number of people in line at the clerk’s counter and reduce the number of phone calls that are received.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
The public relies on the court to maintain accurate data and also relies on the court to provide information in a timely manner. Today, courts have the opportunity to take advantage of many different types of technology that will save time and money and thus improve public trust and confidence in the courts. With the aid of technology, a court may increase accuracy and accessibility to information, in addition to the expediency of adjudicating a case.

There are many times when a credit agency calls to see if a judgement has been satisfied or a military agency needs to know if an individual has a criminal record. In addition, newspapers report to the public the events of a case and individuals rely on the court to settle small claim and probate cases. Technology can assist courts in entering and maintaining accurate data. For example, some case management systems will alert a court clerk when certain data is incorrect or missing, such as scheduling a wrong court date as a result of a holiday or requiring the entry of a disposition date before continuing to enter the judgment. Imaging and bar-coding systems also allow the court to track documents and files with ease so that information can be retrieved, and copies can be made for the public in a timely manner. Public access terminals also allow the public to search information without having to wait in line to speak to a clerk. Electronic filing allows the clerks to spend more time helping the public and allows the attorneys to spend more time on their cases and less time waiting in line to file a document. Some kiosk terminals will allow the public to make payments to the courts in a more convenient and timely fashion. When payments are made, the court will save money and time on the generation of failure to pay letters and warrants and scheduling Show Cause hearings. In addition, when the court is able to maintain an accurate history of a payment, the public is not sent a letter informing them that they have not paid when a payment has already been made.

Technology should be a tool by which the court enters information accurately and efficiently so that the public has access to that information. Trust and confidence in the court is built when the public perceives that the information is accurate and available and that the court is not wasting the public's time and money.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
Traditionally, court software applications were designed to handle daily business applications. It was very difficult to extract information from these systems. New requested reports required writing a new program, which was time-consuming and the generated data was not always reliable. Direct public access to court information was unheard of. These traditional systems were highly localized, making it very difficult to compile similar data from court to court.

As technology improves and court data becomes more trustworthy, the demand for reliable information increases. Listed below are several types of information systems court should focus on:

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
One of the most exciting technologies to see in 1998 will be the changes to Web browsers that are enabled with XML (Extensible Markup Language). This new technology brings benefits to all parts of the Web. This new markup language promises to make searching for information easier by allowing search engines to retrieve results that pertain specifically to information that most interests you. XML also makes administration of data easier by creating ways to organize the data at a Web site, something not available in HTML today. A major benefit of using this new technology is that the new language can be extended by developers without the need for creating new versions of the language, which will allow for greater flexibility. Many browsers now have some of the XML standard in them, making this technology available now. The benefits to the user will be in how developers use the power of this new technology to describe the informational content of their Web sites instead of the presentation.

Arthur Sims, Executive Officer, Riverside County Consolidated Courts, E-mail: asims@co.riverside.ca.us:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
The current technologies used in the Internet, imaging and kiosk implementations are the breakthroughs that will allow the courts to connect to the public. The banking industry has cleared a path with the implementation of remote access and the court needs to follow. The public is accepting technology and in many cases expect' technology to be available. It is now time for the courts to step up and provide similar technologies to our customers. The technology is available, and the public is willing to accept it.

The Consolidated Courts have had case management systems for over 20 years and imaging systems for the past 5 years. Browser based interfaces using touch screen hardware technology will be the best long-term solution to place this information within reach of the public. The browser interface will also allow customers to access this information remotely.

The Consolidated Courts are implementing an electronic filing program this year using Internet technology. The advances in software technologies over the last couple of years has made it possible to interface Internet technology with existing case management systems. This electronic filing program will be available to the public over the Internet as well as through devices in the courthouse.

Other technology that allows the court to connect' to the public are in the courtroom itself. The Consolidated Courts have installed digital display devices in all trial courtrooms. These devices allow the judge, witness, counsel and the jury to view exhibits on television monitors, eliminating the need to distribute exhibits through the jury box and increasing the speed of the trial. The presence of this technology also allows the public see that the justice system is working to speed up the process whenever possible.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
The Internet has given the courts immediate access to worldwide information. While the Internet has not yet directly affected the way this court processes cases, it has increased the effectiveness of court administration. Using the Internet for product research, software support, and global e-mail has allowed administrators to react more quickly to the increasing demands of their jobs.

The court has had a Web site for approximately 2 years that includes maps to court locations, local rules and other court information. Currently the site gets 1,000 hits per month.

The most positive influential factor that the Internet has introduced is a universal standard' computer interface. Before the wide spread acceptance of the Internet browser every computer system had a different user interface. The interfaces were as unique as the person or company that wrote the software. The Internet has now defined the user interface that will be used into the future. The courts challenge is now to provide court data (cases, calendar, document images, etc.) within the browser interface. The browser and the communication infrastructure are the biggest contributions the Internet has made to the distribution of electronic court information.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
Technology can improve public trust and confidence on two ways. 1) delivery of information and 2) public verification. There is no reason that the courts can not operate up to the level of large private corporations and the public expects this level of service. The courts must be able to deliver accurate and timely information consistently. There is nothing that quells public trust and confidence faster that having a court spend minutes looking for a file or document. Even worse, asking the customer to return at another time to view the file.

Easy, inexpensive (or free) electronic public access to court records will also improve public confidence by allowing the public to verify that the public record is accurate. Like credit information, the public has the right to examine court information to insure its' accuracy.

The jury process is another area that has high contact with the public. More of the public is exposed to the jury system each year than to any other area of the court. The efficiency and level of technology used in the jury operation will have a lasting impression on the public. Its operation will either instill trust and confidence or eliminate it.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
The Consolidated Courts are focused on deploying the information that we have accumulated. As I mentioned, we have a large case management database that includes information on all case types within the court. Traffic, Criminal, Civil, Family Law, Probate and Small Claims have been automated for years. We also have 5 years of Civil documents imaged and available for retrieval. Our challenge is to get this information available to the public, all court staff and all judicial officers. Deploying this information will involve the implementation of browsers, image capable plug-ins, Java applications and the hardware to support the deployment.

Other than deploying existing information the court will implement electronic filing. The technology used in this effort will be our focus this year.

We also plan to expand our existing Interactive Voice Response system. Currently it is only used to pay traffic citations, we expect to use this technology in other areas of the court.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
From a hardware standpoint I expect to see the implementation of thin-clients. The new applications that the court will be implementing will require a GUI interface that cannot be supported by dumb terminals. Currently 2/3 of our 700 devices are dumb terminals. We are currently testing thin-client devices, and I expect the technology to mature early in 1998. Very soon we will be purchasing thin-clients instead of dumb terminals and in some areas instead of personal computers.

We expect Data Warehousing and Software integration tools to come of age during 1998. Riverside County is more than 250 miles from end to end and the court has 18 locations. We currently have two data centers with separate databases. All databases can be accessed/updated from anywhere in the county, but they are not a combined' database at this point. These databases need to be combined' to allow staff to more easily process cases from anywhere in the county.

Data Warehousing technology will also be implemented to create a countywide Family Index'. The county is placing more emphasis on dealing with cases based on the family' and at this point our automated systems cannot identify families. We expect the Data Warehousing and software integration tools to provide us with technology based solutions to these problems during 1998.

Final Thoughts
The technology is already available to allow the courts to better serve the public. It is the courts challenge to IMPLEMENT this existing technology.

J. Douglas Walker, Senior Technology Associate, National Center for State Courts, E-mail: dwalker@ncsc.dni.us:

1. Which technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
Without a doubt, the Internet, together with related communications and personal computer technologies, has had the greatest effect on the ability to connect courts with the public. The Internet provided two strategic components essential to establish a practical technology bridge between courts and the public:

1. a common user interface via Web browsers, permitting any court to produce and disseminate information easily in a standardized, electronic format without regard to what hardware or software platforms the recipients were using.
2. an increasingly ubiquitous communications methodology that removes the distance barrier and is rapidly gaining acceptance as a mainstream means of conducting commerce as well as obtaining information.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way courts conduct business?
Already, the Internet has brought many important tools to the courts. Numerous courts are now using the Net for off-site e-mail communication with judges, court staff, attorneys, state AOCs, and other local and state agencies. Some courts even use e-mail to notify attorneys of rulings or schedule changes. In the last couple of years, the number of courts with Web pages has climbed at an astounding pace. These Web sites contain a wealth of information not only useful to local residents but of interest to many individuals around the world. The Internet also provides a practical pathway for electronic filing. Several federal courts already have Internet-based electronic filing systems in place, and state courts are beginning to harness this technical approach.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
Throughout the "Information Age," courts have had the need to demonstrate efficiency and reliability through their use of appropriate technology. Today, however, through the use of electronic public access systems and Internet Web pages, lawyers and the general public have the ability to see firsthand that courts are (hopefully!) maintaining accurate and timely information in their databases. Moreover, in addition to case-related information and court calendars, citizens may easily access a variety of helpful information published electronically by the court in multimedia-enriched format, such as explanation of terms and procedures, interactive maps and guides to court services, on-line directories, and downloadable court forms. Such access removes much of the anxiety and frustration that citizens may feel when forced to deal with unfamiliar court business, and it helps create an open and friendly context in which the courts are viewed.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
Flexibility and connectivity are two key terms that have been around for awhile but need increased emphasis. Courts should work to develop increasingly open and flexible information systems that not only can capture, organize, and retrieve a variety of information types, but also can exchange data effectively with other agencies and entities. Computerized court information increasingly will consist of photographs, document images, an assortment of other graphics, fingerprints, audio, and full-motion video, in addition to the usual character-oriented data fields. Information systems must have the ability to integrate a mixture of information types in an electronic case file. They must also be able to connect through appropriate interfaces to share information with other systems in law enforcement agencies, prosecutor’s offices, law firms, social services offices, and many other organizations.

5. What is the most exciting technology development that you expect to see in 1998?
Rather than a single technology development, I see 1998 as an exciting year for the maturation of many complementary technology advancements and shakeouts in technology-related industries. These synergistic evolvements hold great promise for the courts as well as many other sectors of society.

In the Internet and telecommunications arena, the tail-chasing cycle of hardware price/performance improvements versus processing power requirements of newly developed software continues to accelerate, while in a parallel cycle, bandwidth and compression-based throughput improvements pursue the insatiable demands of Web content enrichments. To the end user, these improvements result in Web pages that still take too long to load but contain incredible capabilities to convey information, facilitate navigation through information resources, and permit secure two-way transactions for a number of purposes. Increased desktop horsepower matched with higher transmission rates also will permit use of personal videoconferencing via the Net to become more practical. Moreover, content providers more routinely will incorporate streaming video and audio to deliver information over the Net.

In the telecommunications industries, companies are scrambling to compete in the local and long-distance markets for data, voice, Internet, and cable TV services. In the wake of telecommunications deregulation and subsequent case law, industry players are spinning and bobbing about so erratically that it is difficult to tell not only where the corporate boundaries are but who will provide what service. Via mergers, acquisitions, deal-making, and creative reselling, venerable corporations with a foot in one of the traditional markets are struggling to hold onto their customers in that market while trying to stake out a share in one or more of the other markets. At the same time, a host of still independent startup companies try to lure customers with low rates and clever advertising.

Consumers are hopping from one "phone" company to another, chasing ever-sweeter deals for long-distance service, and perhaps grabbing a promotional bargain for wireless and Internet services as well. In the meantime, cable companies are gearing up to expand their offerings of Internet connectivity via cable modems with dizzying data transmission rates that put the local phone company’s (whoever they are now) touted ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) capabilities to shame. Even technical near-illiterates are purchasing powerful multimedia PCs with built-in videophone capabilities, installing second phone lines, and subscribing to unlimited-use accounts with Internet service providers (ISPs).

What does all this mean? In 1998 the floodgates are open for electronic access from homes and offices. No longer the hobby of nerds and hackers, telecommunications technology—primarily through the Internet—is being used by a growing cross-section of society to conduct routine business. In addition to personal and business correspondence, individuals are using this medium to locate and obtain information from a vast array of government and consumer organizations. More importantly, 1998 will see a significant expansion in the use of the Internet for secure, on-line transactions. Many more consumers will begin making purchases, maintaining bank accounts, paying bills, and completing sensitive "paperwork" over the Internet from their homes or offices.

What is the implication for the courts? The public is rapidly adopting the expectation that information will be available electronically via the Internet. Just as courts still without a computerized docket a few years ago began to be regarded as outdated and inefficient, courts in 1998 that are not at least making an effort to establish a Web page will lose some credibility among their constituents. Citizens growing accustomed to shopping, banking, renewing automobile registrations, and filing tax returns on line will expect to be able to use their computers to pay a traffic ticket, determine and reschedule an appearance date, respond to juror summonses, and conduct other routine court business. Furthermore, they will come to expect their attorneys to be connected to the court electronically, not only to look up court information, but also to file case documents. They may even wonder why their attorney has to drive to the courthouse for a five-minute motion hearing when, from their own home computer with a nominal investment in additional technology, they can have a face-to-face audiovisual conversation with a relative across the country.

The tools are available, public expectation is rising, and progressive courts wisely are entering 1998 with rollout after rollout of technology improvements and new electronic communications capabilities.

C. Sue Willoughby, Director of Automation, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, E-mail: swillough@courts.state.pa.us:

1. What technologies have the most promise for connecting courts to the public?
Internet and Intranet technologies and the new network stations or thin clients.

We are currently working with 9 state agencies in developing a criminal justice network called JNET for Pennsylvania. We will be using the Internet and Intranets and will develop good security techniques and policies. If the courts and the other criminal justice agencies had to wait for the funds for new equipment and networks we would not be able to share information soon. We use the Internet to provide the most current forms to the public and attorneys. Since the District Justice System has dumb terminals instead of PC's we will be testing some of the new network stations. This could provide the functionality we need without the costly drain on resources.

2. How has the Internet influenced the way the courts conduct business?
We are now able to provide information in a timely fashion via our home page and fulfill our public access requests with very few personnel. Since this is a large state communicating information and changes to rules is difficult. We will soon link the state court administrator to the 60 county court administrators using the Internet so that information can flow to all instantaneously.

3. How can technology improve public trust and confidence in the courts?
When courts are unable to share important information concerning those who must use the system and those who are repeat offenders and/or easily schedule court hearings and post changes and delays it erodes the public's confidence in the court. It is difficult for the public to understand that many times our courts are not automated to the degree they should be and do not always have access to the most current information. IT is not that we lack the expertise in many cases but the courts frequently lack the tools.

4. What types of information systems should courts focus on?
Open systems that are flexible and can be easily adapted to accommodate the frequent changes required by rules and statute. We should share information on systems that easy to develop and support. The courts generally suffer from a lack of funding for automation so if we can benefit from others success or failure we should do so. Sharing information on security techniques would be very helpful since it is such a critical issue to the courts. Procuring hardware that provides the necessary functionality but is easy to maintain with a small staff could be very helpful from a budge request standpoint.

5. What is the most exciting technology development you expect to see in 1998?
We are hoping that the vendors proceed with the network stations and move forward with building better and more economic stations. The cost of hardware continues to decline but the support and ongoing maintenance of court case management systems does not. If the Center can provide the information and research gained from courts across the states to those just starting out—the most exciting technology development could be good national court information and well developed automation plans for all of our courts.

Two-tier client/server architecture: A client/server architecture in which the user interface runs on the client and the database is stored on the server.

Three-tier client/server architecture: A special type of client/server architecture consisting of three well-defined and separate processes, each of which runs on a different platform: (1) the user interface runs on the user's computer (client); (2) the functional module actually processes data; and (3) the database management system (DBMS) stores the data required by the middle tier.

Data warehouse: A place where a court can store all of its data. What makes it different from a database is that the information it contains is used for analytical purposes.

Dumb terminal: A combination of a display monitor or printing terminal device that has no processing capabilities.

Graphical user interface (GUI): A program interface that takes advantage of the computer's graphics capabilities to make the program easier to use.

Open system: An architecture whose specifications are public. The opposite is a closed or proprietary system.

Thin client: A client designed to be especially small so that the bulk of the data processing occurs on the server.

Workflow: The defined series of tasks within an organization to produce a final outcome. Once a task is completed, the workflow software ensures that the individuals responsible for the next task are notified and receive the data they need to execute their stage of the process.

[Back to the top]