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

28 Law & Pol'y 211 (2006)
Videoconferencing in Criminal Proceedings: Legal and Empirical Issues and Directions for Research

handle is hein.journals/lawpol28 and id is 215 raw text is: Videoconferencing in Criminal Proceedings: Legal and Empirical Issues and Directions for Research MOLLY TREADWAY JOHNSON and ELIZABETH C. WIGGINS State and federal courts are increasingly using videoconferencing to hold pro- ceedings in criminal cases, including first appearances and arraignments. How- ever, little systematic information is available about the extent of its use, the proceedings for which it is used, how it is implemented, and, most importantly, whether videoconferencing affects the behavior or perceptions of participants in a way that violates a defendant's fundamental rights. In this article we review the legal and empirical issues raised by the use of videoconferencing in criminal cases and describe empirical research that could and, we argue, should, inform policy decisions concerning its use. I. INTRODUCTION As technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, many federal and state courts have begun using two-way videoconferencing to handle various types of proceedings. When videoconferencing is used, generally some of the participants (including the judge) are in the courtroom, while others (including a defendant or a witness) are at a remote location. Participants in each of the locations are able to view the others on a television monitor and both audio and visual signals are transmitted through high-speed tele- phone lines (Federal Judicial Center 2001). Proponents of videoconferencing point to time and cost savings for the courts as well as other participants, such as attorneys or witnesses who would otherwise have to travel a long distance to participate in the hearing. In addition, they note that technology has improved to the point where We would like to thank Steve Breckler, Spencer Kelly, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily of the Federal Judicial Center. Address correspondence to Molly Treadway Johnson, The Federal Judicial Center, 1 Columbus Circle, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 USA. Telephone: (202) 502-4070; e-mail: mjohnson@fjc.gov. LAW & POLICY, Vol. 28, No. 2, April 2006 ISSN 0265-8240 © 2006 Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy No claim to original US government works

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.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most