Order in the e-Court! 286
theodp writes "Every word spoken in the e-Courtroom where Branden Basham is on trial for his life appears immediately before the judge on a computer screen. There's a flat-screen monitor between every two seats in the jury box, a witness-box monitor with touch-screen features, and large-screen monitors for public viewing. Lawyers say e-Courtrooms help reduce trial time by making evidence display and tracking documents more efficient. 'It made the Chadrick Fulks' case three to five days shorter,' said an Assistant U.S. Attorney, referring to Basham's co-defendant, who plead guilty and was sentenced to death."
Lawyers love this (Score:5, Interesting)
My job (Score:4, Interesting)
I work for CVision (the closed circuit IP based system used in the article). Frankly, this type of technology has to be stopped. When we're testing the systems in new installations we're ordered to cut back on the gamma and hike up the contrast for the cameras that focus on the defendant.
The reason? To make the defendant more menacing.
Cameras focused at the witness stand are lightened up and softened somewhat to make the witness appear more likeable. It's a total joke, fortunately my contract ends in just shy of 3 months.
Technology is fine, but this is an outright abuse.
3 to 5 days? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Lawyers love this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My job (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it any worse than having the defendant show up with freshly cut hair, a clean shaved face, and in a suit?
Does the jury ever actually see the defendant sitting there (live - not on TV)?
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:4, Interesting)
I was on a jury (case of four teenagers breaking ~1000 mailboxes in four counties along the Dixe/Dort Highway. Biggest waste of three days in my life) a few years ago, and you'd be suprised how many times the proceedings had to be inturrupted because a lawyer, the judge, or the jury couldn't hear what was being said clearly. Every time, the court reporter had to stand up and read the last few things that were said. This would sometimes happen two to three times an hour.
phoning it in (Score:5, Interesting)
People are not nearly sophisticated enought to ignore the noise introduced by these technologies, and to notice the edited experiences they ignore. Does "can you hear me now?" mean anything to anyone? We can barely use these technologies in a cooperative conference call, with little more than "where should we meet for lunch?" on the line. It's unconscionable that people's lives are on the line with these technologies in the mix.
Theatrics (Score:5, Interesting)
Atty 1: "So has your buggering of small animals caused harm to your eyesight making you an unfit witness?"
Atty 2: "Objection"
Judge: "Sustained - the jury is instructed to disregard."
Atty 1: "No further questions"
Any question/response ruled inadmissable would be deleted - no chance of influencing the jury either intentionally or by accident.
If the jury pool is tainted or unable to reach a verdict, just seat a new jury and replay the recordings.
If evidence or judge's instructions are ruled incorrect or inadmissable by a higher court just edit the recording and show it to a new jury. This also eliminates the problem of a witness who dies before a retrial.
Killing people is evil. (Score:0, Interesting)
Let's just be clear about this: killing people is considered WRONG out here in the "rest of the world". The U.S. is in the company of a few places like China, Saudi Arabia and the former regime in Iraq by killing people convicted of serious crimes. IT IS NOT NORMAL. Let's all boycot the United States and everything that comes out of it until they stop this unpleasant practice.
Re:My job (Score:5, Interesting)
parent: Is it any worse than having the defendant show up with freshly cut hair, a clean shaved face, and in a suit?
Should it matter how the defendant looks? If we have a system where looks matter, then we need a new system. If someone is white and in a nice suit, should that excuse the person, where the judge thinks "oh, he made a bad mistake, i feel sorry for him", but if it is a poor black teen the judge thinks "miserable evil uneducated basturd, you deserve to suffer for being so dark".
It is like there are two legal systems, one for the rich and one for the poor. One who can afford their own private lawyer, and one who gets a public defender. Let me guess, these monitors will mostly be used with poorer people who can't afford their own attorney to assert their rights.
The solution is to move money over from welfare (Score:3, Interesting)
What I am talking about isn't the shrill left wing bullshit of "OMG they want to lock up all the poor people" but rather a strict libertarianization of Giuliani's "Broken Windows" enforcement program. The idea is that you prosecute all minor property offenses and you treat even something as simple as an inner city teen stealing an inner city child's bike as a "gateway crime." It does two things: tries to nip the problem of repeat offenders in the bud by showing them the law always applies, and it shows the poor that the law can work for them just like the rich.
Without strong property protections, the poor don't have an incentive to believe that hard work really pays off. For every cop that genuinely believes that they have a moral imperative to protect that inner city single mother and her kids' property, there are probably 5 that feel that it's "not worth it the trouble to the tax payers." To which I, as a voting Libertarian, have to ask, "then WTF am I doing paying your salary and letting you hide behind a badge?" Seriously, sometimes with this kind of attitude I think we'd be better off in most areas in America with firing 90% of the cops and letting the average law abiding citizen own military-grade infantry weapons and waste any mofo that tries to steal from them. As Heinlein said, an armed society, is a polite society.
Seriously, just cut the welfare programs, gun control laws, let people use force to defend their property and make the cops accountable for when they don't do a damn thing to take down petty property rights offenders. Within a few years, the poverty in much of the urban areas in America will sharply decline, along with the crime rates, especially the violent crime.
Re:My job (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is a brilliant idea (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't new (Score:2, Interesting)
This was just a local trouble but they were still using the interactive/plasma screens for witness protection, so I wouldn't be surprised at all that these guys are being video-trialled.
Wonder if I could get the link to this trial, though...
Sci-Fi != Reality (Score:3, Interesting)
What can you say of a society that pretends there is 'some good in all of us', or that evil people deserve 'mercy'? Or worse yet, that there is no such thing as 'good' or 'evil'? Is that 'advanced'? Is that 'enlightened'?
The idea that only a 'primitive' society could still have the Death Penalty is bizarre, bordering on the contemptibly stupid.
In other words, I'm sure it's all the rage on college campuses.
A Step Away From Lawyer Theatrics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really good lawyers know how to size up jurors, decide which of them to "work on" and play to them individually, knowing that a purely psychological reaction by one person can deadlock the result. Technology like this being installed in courtrooms would make it physically possible to move the lawyer offstage. But I doubt very much that the Johnny Cochrans of the world will let go of their bread and butter merely for the sake of justice.
Faster != Better (Score:4, Interesting)
I am part of what I hope is a growing number of people who think that "Powerpoint and Technology In the Courtroom" is actually a great leap backwards, and not a step forwards.
When prosecutors can out-spend a defendant and get super computer graphics to snow the jury into snuffing reasonable doubt, where's the justice in that?
Re:Faster != Better (Score:2, Interesting)
But this is what I do (run the displays) and if only one side is using the tech it really unbalaces things.
We generally do corporate civil stuff, so both sides are doing the same thing. And in that case it really does help the jury get a better understanding. Even when only one side uses the tech it helps them understand, but only one side of the story.
Our just system is designed on both sides doing their best though, so is it fair to say, you cannot do your best in presenting your case, because your best is so much better.
We typically have a large projection screen. Monitors for the jury and lawyers, court reporter and judge. The Lawyers/Judge get to see the transcript in real time. The Jury does not (in case there is a disagreement on what was really said, showing the jury the non official version could be pregudicial). The judge has a switch so that the juries monitors/projector can be switched off in the case of an objection.
There are already plenty of people like you. There are also judges that think the jury should be in the dark as possible (not alloud to take notes, not alloud to see the documents being read into the record, just generally all around left with nothing to see and no notes to take, and then 2 weeks later form an opinion based on the whole thing and not the closings.
I don't think informing the jury is wrong, though the inequity of it is a hard problem to solve. In the civil cases I work on I don't mind it too much, but the fact that people's entire lives are at steak here turns my stomach (though still, why should the DA be forced to dumb things down).