| Hey there, it's Shelly. Move over, Judge Judy. Lovers of legal drama can now get real-life trials beamed to their devices live from courtrooms across the country. As government buildings throughout the U.S. shut their doors to prevent the spread of Covid-19, many judges have moved operations online rather than put cases on hold altogether. The result is that custody hearings, bankruptcy proceedings, abuse charges and other cases are being heard by virtual courts. And thanks to the digital convenience of live-streaming, public hearings can now truly be heard by any member of the public. To date, three dozen states have issued orders on virtual hearings, while Connecticut, New Mexico and others have mandated their use in some cases, according to the National Center for State Courts. Miami held its first major criminal court hearing via Zoom last week (a case in which a retired teacher was accused of having sex with an underage student). And on Monday, New York's chief judge said its virtual court system was up and running to conduct essential and emergency proceedings via Skype. I tuned into some of the proceedings in Texas, where I grew up, and the feeling was uncomfortable and oddly voyeuristic, a little like scrolling through an ex-boyfriend's email. Some cases that I happened upon were extremely sad, like the man trying to change his name to escape from a history of family abuse. In general, most courtrooms are open to anyone, due to constitutionally-afforded rights to a fair and public trial. But there are natural barriers to viewing those proceedings, like time and travel, that can make them feel more private than sending the information out onto the various platforms court systems have been using—primarily Alphabet Inc.'s YouTube, Zoom Video Communications Inc., Cisco Systems Inc.'s Webex and Microsoft Corp.'s Skype or Teams. There's also some privacy afforded to courtrooms by old-fashioned physical distance. It's hard to an remain anonymous observer if you have to physically show up in person, or to illegally tape the proceedings when bailiffs with guns are standing right there. On YouTube, anyone can watch anonymously like I did. And nothing is physically stopping a viewer from recording the hearing for personal use later. "Judges aren't thrilled at the thought of all our work being put on YouTube, but we want to be flexible," said Collin County, Texas Judge Emily Miskel, who now has more than 500 followers on her court's YouTube channel. "I don't want technology to be the barrier to anyone having their day in court." When Texas judges set up the virtual court system last month, some advocated for protecting the hearings with passwords for further privacy but ultimately decided against it. "You shouldn't need government permission to exercise your right to a public court hearing," Miskel says, noting that she and other judges are consulting privacy laws already on the books that determine when certain evidence or testimony should be excluded from a public courtroom. Miskel told me she's included a "Do Not Record" watermark on the videos and is deleting them after they're posted, and that "there will be legal consequences," for recording. Is the system perfect? "No," Miskel said. "But for every drawback, there's a competing benefit, like the value of civic education by making our courtrooms more accessible to the public. For now, we're just going to see how it goes." —Shelly Banjo | 
Post a Comment