Since 1972, when an Illinois court used a videophone to conduct a bail hearing, courts have been lured by the promise of cost savings and increased security offered by videoconferencing technologies.  In 1974 a Philadelphia court installed a closed-circuit television system for preliminary arraignments, and in 1983 Dade County, Florida, implemented videoconferencing for misdemeanor hearings.  The videotape made during the hearing was the official court record.  In the mid-nineties when the alleged Unabomber’s arraignment on first-degree murder and related charges was scheduled in a New Jersey federal court, Theodore J. Kaczynski (a.k.a., the Unabomber) was being held in Sacramento, California.  Estimated costs of transporting the defendant were $30,000.  Using teleconferencing, the court conducted the arraignment at a cost of about $45.

With dramatic savings like this, why did it take so long for videoconferencing to be accepted by the courts?  There were a number of reasons.  For example, each state that uses videoconferencing in criminal proceedings has to deal with the questions about adequacy of legal representation when defendant and counsel are at separate locations and defendants’ demands to confront witnesses in person.  Judges may complain that the lack of contact with a witness makes it difficult to assess the competence of the witness. Others feel that video arraignments are less formal, which may lessen the deterrent effect of a court appearance.  During the late nineties, many of these obstacles were resolved, and videoconferencing became a mature and accepted technology for the courts in a majority of states.  In addition to video arraignments, videoconferencing has proven effective in several other areas.  Attorneys use it for motions and appellate oral arguments.  It saves time and traveling costs for expert testimony.  It's used for sensitive testimony from victims of domestic abuse, child molestation, and sexual battery, and it allows crime victims to witness parole hearings. 

The initial start-up costs for a videoconferencing system are substantial, but cost-benefit analysis shows that these costs are quickly offset by, among other things, the savings in transportation and security costs involved with bringing a prisoner to the courtroom.  Primary expenditures include equipment, telephone lines, and a conferencing facility (or courtroom).  Minimum equipment includes cameras, microphones, speakers, monitors, and a communications network.

Staging inside a courtroom is key to a successful prosecution or litigation.  The judge needs to be able to control the proceedings, the witness needs to be able to visualize the defendant and the attorney arguing the case, and, importantly, the jury needs to be able to see the person on the stand.  An ideal videoconferencing system addresses all of the above issues. 

Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.

---

Featured Links

General

Online Articles

Federal Courts

Video Record

Green Courts

Archives Prior 2000