By Donna Rogers, Editor
Over the past decade, video conferencing has proven to be an effective way to save costs in transportation of prisoners—diminishing not only correctional/sheriff staff costs but fleet and fuel costs. But costs are not the only efficiency that video teleconferencing offers. Because of the time sensitive nature of arraignment statutes—they typically need to be held within 24 hours of arrest—they also provide a way for judges and prisoners to meet conveniently even on weekends and in the midst of a snowstorm—24/7/365. Conferencing provides a further security benefit to staff, sheriffs’ deputies and the public in that the inmate does not have to be taken outside the secure perimeter of the detention facility, thus eliminating a possible altercation either en route or within the courthouse, or sidestepping possible retribution attempts by an irate public in response to a particularly egregious crime.
We take a new look at video arraignment and remote appearance to see what the most widespread ways courts are using the application today; hurdles it may need to surmount and technological issues court administrators should be aware of in considering such equipment for their court.
First of all, an increasing number of courts are using video conferencing widely throughout their networks. For example, the state of Nebraska has established over 300 current user accounts in the courts, according to Ann Alden, Supreme Court Justice Business Analyst in a Sept. 9 article in MyWayneNews.com. User accounts have also been established at most of the larger detention centers across the state, all of the 93 county courts and many of the district courts, drug courts, court interpreters, probation offices, mediation centers, some sheriff’s offices. Additionally, several attorneys, including prosecutors, public defenders, and some private practice attorneys, as well as, several judges have been given their own accounts.
The system can be used on personal computers and iPads.
Expanded Uses
In Nebraska, video is allowed by statute for all cases except trials, when the appearance of a detainee or prisoner is required in any court at a non-evidentiary criminal proceeding, according to the article. Video conferencing can be used for several types of criminal proceedings, some civil proceedings, some juvenile proceedings, and some guardianship/conservatorship hearings. Probation, as part of the Judicial Branch, is also connected via video and can conduct business remotely as well.
A good provider has systems that do various applications and is simple to use.
One leading provider is Cisco Systems, Inc., which has a number of videoconferencing and TelePresence solutions for the public safety markets that are included in its Cisco Connected Justice™ program, according to Boyd Patterson, former judge and subject matter expert with the company. Its solutions include Video Remote Interpretation, Video Remote Arraignment, Video Visitation and a variety of other public safety applications. Cisco Connected Justice is an umbrella program designed to connect not only courts, but also law enforcement and corrections agencies. The main goal is to improve collaboration between local, state and federal agencies and offices by leveraging real-time video communications to more effectively administer justice at every phase of the judicial process.
The application of videoconferencing in courts is extensive and meets a broad range of application needs, says the company. Video can be used in familiar scenarios such as video arraignment and video remote interpretation, as well as other applications, such as attorney-client contact, remote testimony, training and education. Once deployed, a Cisco Connected Justice solution can be reused to support any number applications requiring video and TelePresence collaboration.
Cisco, a partner of Global Tel Link, provides the network infrastructure and the video conferencing hardware for these applications. GTL, which acquired Renovo Software in July 2014 because of its expertise in video visitation, distance learning, telemedicine and scheduling within judicial networks, provides the application software that schedules and automates the connections for these applications, according to Tim Eickhoff, co-founder of Renovo and now VP, Business Development & Alternate Channels, GTL.
He notes: “GTL has two different solutions for Court applications. VisManager and VideoScheduler offer slightly different functionality depending on the court’s specific needs and workflow.” Both VisManager and VideoScheduler provide a browser-based scheduling interface for court and/or hearing schedulers. These solutions also provide the automation of the videoconferencing technology, so there is no need for lay persons to understand how to make video connections. The solutions also provide reporting capabilities for administrators to pull utilization reports. GTL’s solutions are fully compatible with standards-based videoconferencing manufacturers like Cisco and Polycom, he points out.
GTL solutions are being used for a variety of typical justice applications: hearing scheduling, courtroom arraignments, language interpretation, lawyer visits, video conferencing amongst judicial offices and probation/parole visits. Customers include the Orange County (Calif.) Circuit Court, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and the Ontario Justice Network.
“Our experience with the Circuit Courts is that the primary use of videoconferencing is for video arraignment and first appearances,” notes Michael E. Black, vice president with full service system integrator, Strike Industries, Inc. He says their aim is to utilize available technologies to meet the specific needs of the client in their specific environment. Some solutions are as simple as a video enabled laptop on the judge’s bench and simple video enabled PC on the jail side for those being arraigned. In other instances, its solutions involve entire courtroom camera and display configurations with vandal-resistant configurations for the jail side. The company provides open standards- based videoconferencing equipment/software from a number of manufacturers including but not limited to Polycom, Avaya, Cisco, ClearOne, Sony, and Lifesize, just to name a few, details Black.
Unique capabilities
In addition to cost savings, video conferencing is used for time efficiency, as noted the first appearance and arraignment process in most states at the Circuit Court Level must occur within 24 hours of an arrest. For medium to large county jail locations where the arrest rate is medium to high, the video arraignment process moves very quickly with most arraignments/first appearances taking less than 2-3 minutes to conclude on average, notes Black.
However, our experience is that the court can gain all the previously outlined savings in cost and time “so long as the system is reliable,” stresses Black.
In the Circuit Courts, first appearances happen at a minimum once a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, he furthers. If the equipment or supporting infrastructure is not reliable then the courts have to revert back to moving inmates or judges going to the jail to meet the “arraignment within 24 hours of arrest” requirement. If the judges do not feel that they have a high quality, reliable service they will demand the inmates be brought to the courthouse, he says. It should be noted, he adds, that the Circuit Court judges who conduct the video arraignment process are also trial judges with many duties other than arraignment. “A smooth-running arraignment process is essential to their schedule.”
Service requests are a norm with any technology, especially in a jail environment, he says. Therefore, “good local, responsive service plays an important role in this type of technology acceptance.”
GTL, the communications and application software vendor, can also work with a variety of open standards video conferencing equipment. “GTL’s unique ability to schedule, automate and manage a variety of different videoconferencing manufacturers provides its customers with investment protection,” says Eickhoff. GTL currently works with video conferencing equipment from Cisco, Polycom, Vidyo, Lifesize, Codian, Tandberg and Radvision.
GTL also offers other unique advantages, he continues. Its scheduling solution has an Outlook Plug-in which enables schedules to be conveniently added to an Outlook Calendar with an iCal. In addition, its scheduling platform interfaces with Jail and Prison Offender Management Systems in order to provide schedulers more accuracy when scheduling to specific video devices for arraignments etc.; finally, GTL’s solution is offered as an on-premise capital deployment or as Hosted/Managed Service.
Cisco Connected Justice solutions are built on an open, standards-based architecture that provides for interoperability between any other standards-based product set and provides development tools that promote information sharing of all types; voice, video and data. “This open platform ensures that any collaboration application can interoperate between systems to provide secure communications from anywhere and from any device whether it is a smartphone, tablet, laptop, or TelePresence system,” says Boyd. “A unique component of Cisco Connected Justice solutions is the industry expertise and technical experts that can help design, build and deploy the video solution and related assets needed to support any public safety application—whether it’s in courts, law enforcement or corrections,” he concludes.
Technological Considerations
Having the proper equipment is key to implementation success. What type of technological specifications should courts be alerted to when considering equipment? “Making sure that the audio and video quality is at or near HD has been extremely important to our customers so the technology doesn’t become a barrier to success,” says GTL’s Eickhoff. Secondly, he continues, “not only making sure technology works but that it is extremely easy to use. Selecting a partner who is hardware and technology neutral is also important so any videoconferencing equipment already acquired can be utilized, thus protecting its investment today as well as tomorrow.
Ensuring teleconferencing solutions are easy to operate for the typical court staff in order that valuable time is not taken to understand how to use conferencing equipment is essential, agrees Patterson. He says Cisco’s solutions are designed to be user-friendly, which imposes minimum demands on the client’s internal human resources to maintain and operate. Additionally, customers have access to the company’s network of partners and support teams for technical assistance.
Cost Savings
Cost reductions are realized from teleconferencing due to a reduction in jail population, lower fees being paid to appointed counsel, the absence of transportation and travel reimbursements and other related savings, continues Patterson. It is important to realize “those benefits are permanent. No additional action is required on the part of the user to continue to recognize savings.”
Cisco Connected Justice solutions include financial analysis as an integral part of the service, he notes. “The development of a long-term technology strategy should include a forecast of cost savings, which will vary among users, but can be calculated with a high degree of reliability based upon the company’s experience in providing these services.”
A case in point is the Bexar County Court (San Antonio, Texas), which implemented a Cisco TelePresence video teleconferencing system in 2011 to increase efficiencies in judicial proceedings. According to Catherine Maras, who serves as CIO of the county: “The updated teleconferencing system has saved our county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Nebraska’s Alden is also a huge proponent. "Cost savings, convenience, and safety are the biggest benefits,” she says. “Winters in Nebraska can cause for the postponement of hearings due to road conditions, and getting defendants transported. By using video conferencing, this issue can be alleviated.”
She also said in the article that when the project started, the primary purpose for video conferencing in the courts was to provide more cost-effective and convenient court interpreter services. The project has rapidly expanded to additional uses.
Further Study
Pennsylvania is one of the states that has made substantial investment in videoconferencing technologies. Back in 2008, about half of the Common Pleas Courts in the state had videoconferencing technology, according to a Feb. 2014 article, “Videoconferencing in Court?” on www.theconferencingzone.com. In fact, Pennsylvania’s judiciary is recognized as a pioneer in the use of videoconferencing technology in the country. According to one estimate, Pennsylvania’s courts reportedly conduct about 15,000 proceedings via videoconferencing each month in the matters of arraignments, warrant proceedings and bail and sentencing hearings.
The growing use of videoconferencing in the legal sector has also necessitated the framing of best practices and guidelines for the use of the technology in state and local court systems. To this end, a workgroup has been set up by the National Institute of Justice consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jail administrators, court administrators and court technology staff from across the nation. It is tasked with reviewing Pennsylvania’s experience with videoconferencing to develop protocols in state and local courts for post-arraignment release hearings.
When its guidelines are formulated in the coming months you can be rest assured more courts will join the ranks of satisfied video conferencing customers.
Over the past decade, video conferencing has proven to be an effective way to save costs in transportation of prisoners—diminishing not only correctional/sheriff staff costs but fleet and fuel costs. But costs are not the only efficiency that video teleconferencing offers. Because of the time sensitive nature of arraignment statutes—they typically need to be held within 24 hours of arrest—they also provide a way for judges and prisoners to meet conveniently even on weekends and in the midst of a snowstorm—24/7/365. Conferencing provides a further security benefit to staff, sheriffs’ deputies and the public in that the inmate does not have to be taken outside the secure perimeter of the detention facility, thus eliminating a possible altercation either en route or within the courthouse, or sidestepping possible retribution attempts by an irate public in response to a particularly egregious crime.
We take a new look at video arraignment and remote appearance to see what the most widespread ways courts are using the application today; hurdles it may need to surmount and technological issues court administrators should be aware of in considering such equipment for their court.
First of all, an increasing number of courts are using video conferencing widely throughout their networks. For example, the state of Nebraska has established over 300 current user accounts in the courts, according to Ann Alden, Supreme Court Justice Business Analyst in a Sept. 9 article in MyWayneNews.com. User accounts have also been established at most of the larger detention centers across the state, all of the 93 county courts and many of the district courts, drug courts, court interpreters, probation offices, mediation centers, some sheriff’s offices. Additionally, several attorneys, including prosecutors, public defenders, and some private practice attorneys, as well as, several judges have been given their own accounts.
The system can be used on personal computers and iPads.
Expanded Uses
In Nebraska, video is allowed by statute for all cases except trials, when the appearance of a detainee or prisoner is required in any court at a non-evidentiary criminal proceeding, according to the article. Video conferencing can be used for several types of criminal proceedings, some civil proceedings, some juvenile proceedings, and some guardianship/conservatorship hearings. Probation, as part of the Judicial Branch, is also connected via video and can conduct business remotely as well.
A good provider has systems that do various applications and is simple to use.
One leading provider is Cisco Systems, Inc., which has a number of videoconferencing and TelePresence solutions for the public safety markets that are included in its Cisco Connected Justice™ program, according to Boyd Patterson, former judge and subject matter expert with the company. Its solutions include Video Remote Interpretation, Video Remote Arraignment, Video Visitation and a variety of other public safety applications. Cisco Connected Justice is an umbrella program designed to connect not only courts, but also law enforcement and corrections agencies. The main goal is to improve collaboration between local, state and federal agencies and offices by leveraging real-time video communications to more effectively administer justice at every phase of the judicial process.
The application of videoconferencing in courts is extensive and meets a broad range of application needs, says the company. Video can be used in familiar scenarios such as video arraignment and video remote interpretation, as well as other applications, such as attorney-client contact, remote testimony, training and education. Once deployed, a Cisco Connected Justice solution can be reused to support any number applications requiring video and TelePresence collaboration.
Cisco, a partner of Global Tel Link, provides the network infrastructure and the video conferencing hardware for these applications. GTL, which acquired Renovo Software in July 2014 because of its expertise in video visitation, distance learning, telemedicine and scheduling within judicial networks, provides the application software that schedules and automates the connections for these applications, according to Tim Eickhoff, co-founder of Renovo and now VP, Business Development & Alternate Channels, GTL.
He notes: “GTL has two different solutions for Court applications. VisManager and VideoScheduler offer slightly different functionality depending on the court’s specific needs and workflow.” Both VisManager and VideoScheduler provide a browser-based scheduling interface for court and/or hearing schedulers. These solutions also provide the automation of the videoconferencing technology, so there is no need for lay persons to understand how to make video connections. The solutions also provide reporting capabilities for administrators to pull utilization reports. GTL’s solutions are fully compatible with standards-based videoconferencing manufacturers like Cisco and Polycom, he points out.
GTL solutions are being used for a variety of typical justice applications: hearing scheduling, courtroom arraignments, language interpretation, lawyer visits, video conferencing amongst judicial offices and probation/parole visits. Customers include the Orange County (Calif.) Circuit Court, Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and the Ontario Justice Network.
“Our experience with the Circuit Courts is that the primary use of videoconferencing is for video arraignment and first appearances,” notes Michael E. Black, vice president with full service system integrator, Strike Industries, Inc. He says their aim is to utilize available technologies to meet the specific needs of the client in their specific environment. Some solutions are as simple as a video enabled laptop on the judge’s bench and simple video enabled PC on the jail side for those being arraigned. In other instances, its solutions involve entire courtroom camera and display configurations with vandal-resistant configurations for the jail side. The company provides open standards- based videoconferencing equipment/software from a number of manufacturers including but not limited to Polycom, Avaya, Cisco, ClearOne, Sony, and Lifesize, just to name a few, details Black.
Unique capabilities
In addition to cost savings, video conferencing is used for time efficiency, as noted the first appearance and arraignment process in most states at the Circuit Court Level must occur within 24 hours of an arrest. For medium to large county jail locations where the arrest rate is medium to high, the video arraignment process moves very quickly with most arraignments/first appearances taking less than 2-3 minutes to conclude on average, notes Black.
However, our experience is that the court can gain all the previously outlined savings in cost and time “so long as the system is reliable,” stresses Black.
In the Circuit Courts, first appearances happen at a minimum once a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, he furthers. If the equipment or supporting infrastructure is not reliable then the courts have to revert back to moving inmates or judges going to the jail to meet the “arraignment within 24 hours of arrest” requirement. If the judges do not feel that they have a high quality, reliable service they will demand the inmates be brought to the courthouse, he says. It should be noted, he adds, that the Circuit Court judges who conduct the video arraignment process are also trial judges with many duties other than arraignment. “A smooth-running arraignment process is essential to their schedule.”
Service requests are a norm with any technology, especially in a jail environment, he says. Therefore, “good local, responsive service plays an important role in this type of technology acceptance.”
GTL, the communications and application software vendor, can also work with a variety of open standards video conferencing equipment. “GTL’s unique ability to schedule, automate and manage a variety of different videoconferencing manufacturers provides its customers with investment protection,” says Eickhoff. GTL currently works with video conferencing equipment from Cisco, Polycom, Vidyo, Lifesize, Codian, Tandberg and Radvision.
GTL also offers other unique advantages, he continues. Its scheduling solution has an Outlook Plug-in which enables schedules to be conveniently added to an Outlook Calendar with an iCal. In addition, its scheduling platform interfaces with Jail and Prison Offender Management Systems in order to provide schedulers more accuracy when scheduling to specific video devices for arraignments etc.; finally, GTL’s solution is offered as an on-premise capital deployment or as Hosted/Managed Service.
Cisco Connected Justice solutions are built on an open, standards-based architecture that provides for interoperability between any other standards-based product set and provides development tools that promote information sharing of all types; voice, video and data. “This open platform ensures that any collaboration application can interoperate between systems to provide secure communications from anywhere and from any device whether it is a smartphone, tablet, laptop, or TelePresence system,” says Boyd. “A unique component of Cisco Connected Justice solutions is the industry expertise and technical experts that can help design, build and deploy the video solution and related assets needed to support any public safety application—whether it’s in courts, law enforcement or corrections,” he concludes.
Technological Considerations
Having the proper equipment is key to implementation success. What type of technological specifications should courts be alerted to when considering equipment? “Making sure that the audio and video quality is at or near HD has been extremely important to our customers so the technology doesn’t become a barrier to success,” says GTL’s Eickhoff. Secondly, he continues, “not only making sure technology works but that it is extremely easy to use. Selecting a partner who is hardware and technology neutral is also important so any videoconferencing equipment already acquired can be utilized, thus protecting its investment today as well as tomorrow.
Ensuring teleconferencing solutions are easy to operate for the typical court staff in order that valuable time is not taken to understand how to use conferencing equipment is essential, agrees Patterson. He says Cisco’s solutions are designed to be user-friendly, which imposes minimum demands on the client’s internal human resources to maintain and operate. Additionally, customers have access to the company’s network of partners and support teams for technical assistance.
Cost Savings
Cost reductions are realized from teleconferencing due to a reduction in jail population, lower fees being paid to appointed counsel, the absence of transportation and travel reimbursements and other related savings, continues Patterson. It is important to realize “those benefits are permanent. No additional action is required on the part of the user to continue to recognize savings.”
Cisco Connected Justice solutions include financial analysis as an integral part of the service, he notes. “The development of a long-term technology strategy should include a forecast of cost savings, which will vary among users, but can be calculated with a high degree of reliability based upon the company’s experience in providing these services.”
A case in point is the Bexar County Court (San Antonio, Texas), which implemented a Cisco TelePresence video teleconferencing system in 2011 to increase efficiencies in judicial proceedings. According to Catherine Maras, who serves as CIO of the county: “The updated teleconferencing system has saved our county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Nebraska’s Alden is also a huge proponent. "Cost savings, convenience, and safety are the biggest benefits,” she says. “Winters in Nebraska can cause for the postponement of hearings due to road conditions, and getting defendants transported. By using video conferencing, this issue can be alleviated.”
She also said in the article that when the project started, the primary purpose for video conferencing in the courts was to provide more cost-effective and convenient court interpreter services. The project has rapidly expanded to additional uses.
Further Study
Pennsylvania is one of the states that has made substantial investment in videoconferencing technologies. Back in 2008, about half of the Common Pleas Courts in the state had videoconferencing technology, according to a Feb. 2014 article, “Videoconferencing in Court?” on www.theconferencingzone.com. In fact, Pennsylvania’s judiciary is recognized as a pioneer in the use of videoconferencing technology in the country. According to one estimate, Pennsylvania’s courts reportedly conduct about 15,000 proceedings via videoconferencing each month in the matters of arraignments, warrant proceedings and bail and sentencing hearings.
The growing use of videoconferencing in the legal sector has also necessitated the framing of best practices and guidelines for the use of the technology in state and local court systems. To this end, a workgroup has been set up by the National Institute of Justice consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jail administrators, court administrators and court technology staff from across the nation. It is tasked with reviewing Pennsylvania’s experience with videoconferencing to develop protocols in state and local courts for post-arraignment release hearings.
When its guidelines are formulated in the coming months you can be rest assured more courts will join the ranks of satisfied video conferencing customers.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter