Although states have started tentatively lifting measures put in place to slow the spread of COVID-19, there are some changes 鈥� like courts鈥� adoption of virtual, remote proceedings 鈥� that .
That was the push behind two recent webinars hosted by 成人VR视频 鈥� one focused on and the other focused on 鈥� that together explored the transition to virtual court proceedings. Panelists from both webinars met online later for a follow-up conversation facilitated by 成人VR视频, about the future of virtual courts.
Judge Emily Miskel of the addressed whether remote proceedings will become optional as social-distancing requirements are relaxed. 鈥淥ur Texas Supreme Court has allowed us to require people to appear remotely, but unlike the federal rules, there is nothing, in my opinion, that I鈥檝e found in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure or otherwise, that entitles someone to demand a hearing in a building, other than a jury trial, obviously,鈥� Judge Miskel 聽said.
鈥淭he human judiciary is never going to be able to be replaced because of the ability to exercise equity and allow for modifications, notwithstanding the tools that [we] have to make our jobs easier.”
Judge Roy Ferguson of the in Texas agreed that judges should have discretion over remote proceedings, but must consider attorneys鈥� wishes in doing so 鈥淚f lawyers could veto remote proceedings, certain lawyers would always be in the courthouse and other lawyers would never be in the courthouse,鈥� Judge Ferguson said.
Attorney Gail Gottehrer explained that there is a possible silver lining in potential aversion to technology. 鈥淚t also hopefully will help us get more women and people of color being able to argue motions and participate in arguments because possibly it鈥檒l be less attractive to鈥� certain lawyers who love being in the courthouse.鈥�
As the conversation turned to the possibility of using artificial intelligence to decide cases, Gottehrer rejected the idea. 鈥淚 think we can automate the court system and make it better for everyone on both sides 鈥� for the bar and the bench 鈥� and never get anywhere near robot judges,鈥� she noted.
in Hudson County, N.J., agreed. 鈥淭he human judiciary is never going to be able to be replaced because of the ability to exercise equity and allow for modifications, notwithstanding the tools that [we] have to make our jobs easier,鈥� Judge Jablonski said.
Judge Miskel agreed, adding that she doesn鈥檛 think we would soon see 鈥淎I algorithms making decisions in the judicial realm because there are too many ways that bias or inappropriate data or inappropriate analysis can be built into an algorithm.鈥�
Even if the technology is not biased, use of it could cause trouble for attorneys, explained , Senior Counsel at Dentons. 鈥淲e鈥檝e seen at least one decision I know on the criminal side where there was ineffective assistance of counsel because of an attorney鈥檚 failure to look at certain information, as I recall, that was electronic in nature,鈥� Hedges said.
Technology is also affecting trial judges鈥� responsibilities, Judge Jablonski pointed out. 鈥淥ur appellate division has expressed some concern, informally, that we need to change,鈥� he explained. 鈥淲e as judges need to enhance our gatekeeping responsibilities and ensure that the record that is going to be reviewed is clear as to who is saying what and when.鈥�
鈥淚 think we can automate the court system and make it better for everyone on both sides 鈥� for the bar and the bench 鈥� and never get anywhere near robot judges.鈥�
One way to alleviate that confusion would be to record proceedings, but Judge Miskel cautioned that doing so could tempt appeals courts to conduct 鈥渕ore like a de novo review rather than deferring to trial courts on witness credibility and things like that.鈥�
As the group discussed potential standardization of court technologies, Hedges said that might be financially prohibitive. 鈥淚 think you鈥檙e going to have a smorgasbord of technologies all over the place, which means to me, number one, you have to have someone in the court who鈥檚 a dedicated officer who can run the technology,鈥� he said.
Gottehrer also cited concerns over cybersecurity and privacy. 鈥淲e are essentially at the mercy of these technologies that are being run by private companies who, and not to pick on Zoom, but to a certain extent are still figuring it out,鈥� she added.
Judge Ferguson responded that 鈥測ou can鈥檛 blame Zoom because we鈥檙e not driving their bottom line 鈥� what we need is 鈥榋oom Virtual Courtroom鈥� instead of 鈥榋oom Virtual Meetings.鈥欌�� He described his ideal platform as 鈥渟omething called 鈥楾he Virtual Courtroom鈥� and it brings all of the information 鈥� from the clerks, the court reporters, the coordinator, the judge, everyone 鈥攖ogether in one place.鈥�
Focusing on functionality, Judge Jablonski expressed the need for technology that works without delays between audio and visual content. 鈥淚t鈥檚 those little things that, if [they] could be solved, would make my life a lot easier,鈥� he said.
