About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 John Shapard, Evaluation of Experimental Videotaping of Court Proceedings (Memorandum) 1 (1993)

handle is hein.congcourts/evexvid0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Research Division 202-273-4070 memorandum DATE:May 25, 1993 TO: Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration And Case Management FROM: John Shapard SUBJECT: Evaluation of videotape experiment Evaluation of Experimental Videotaping of Court Proceedings In an experiment begun January, 1991 and concluded December, 1992, the courtrooms of five U.S. District Judges and one Magistrate Judge were equipped for videotape recording of court proceedings. The experimental courtrooms were equipped and the videotape recording procedures developed under the auspices of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, with major assistance from the National Center for State Courts working pursuant to a contract with the Administrative Office, as well as from the participating judges, court personnel, and vendors of the equipment installed in the courtrooms. The Federal Judicial Center undertook to evaluate the experiment. This is the report of the Judicial Center's evaluation. Recommendations are stated briefly at page 3 and in detail on pages 6 and 7. The experiment had two distinct components: (1) the use of videotape--rather than audiotape or stenographic recording--as the medium for recording court proceedings, and (2) use of the videotape--rather than a transcript--as the primary medium for reviewing proceedings in the event of an appeal or motion calling for such review. The objective of the evaluation was to assess the success of both components, from the perspectives of a variety of participants in the process: counsel involved in cases with videotaped proceedings, judges presiding over videotaped proceedings, judges hearing videotaped cases on appeal, persons who produced transcripts of videotapes, and support personnel in the district courts who operated and maintained the videotape equipment. Because the experiment involved only six courtrooms and three appellate courts (with less than all the judges of the appellate courts actually participating), Iit cannot provide a basis 1 Five districts participated in the experiment, with a single courtroom equipped for videotaping in all but the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with two courtrooms. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits participated by accepting the videotape in lieu of transcript for appeals arising from cases in the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, and from the Eastern District of Louisiana and Western District of Texas, respectively. The District Court for

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most