This week the Supreme Court of the United States announced that for the first time in history, they will hear oral arguments remotely. The decision, prompted by the Coronavirus epidemic, introduces a new wrinkle presented in the way court cases will be conducted. One one hand, it’s great that the wheels of justice are continuing to turn during this trying time. On the other hand, not being able to gauge the demeanor of your audience adds a significant complication for lawyers.
As cases (in general, not specific to sex offender cases) proceed through the legal process, many courts are conducting hearings by phone. While it’s not unusual for a lawyer to appear telephonically for a routine matter where it’s impossible or inconvenient to come to the courthouse, it’s completely different when the matters at stake are critical.
In practice, the ability to gauge the reaction on the face of others in the courtroom, was always priceless to me. Is the judge nodding and smiling or shaking their head? Is opposing counsel looking flustered and nervous or confident? And then there’s also nothing like the “oh shit” look on the face of someone you’re cross examining when you’ve touched on a topic they really don’t want you to pursue. To me, that was always my indication of whether to push ahead or change course. Without being able to get a read on the demeanor of others in the courtroom, litigation is a completely different game.
Oral arguments in Does v. Miami-Dade (the SORR case) were originally supposed to take place next week, but have now been postponed until the week of June 8, 2020. I sincerely hope that oral arguments will be able to proceed in person in front of the 11th Circuit that week.
Speaking of which: is a zoom video meeting invite something we need to register? Its not social media.
When you join a Zoom meeting, it prompts you to enter a name, no?
This may be a bit off subject, but in order for a registrants still on probation to be able to access the internet a risk assessment must be given (cost 1,500 to 2,000), then an evaluation from their therapist, a motion to the judge along with a recommendation from their probation officer before any access can be granted. Some therapists, upon notification from the courts that the registrant is approved place a program on the computer to inure that no off-guidelines are accessed and have been known to charge for this ‘privilege’.
Oh! that’s not to mention the cost of getting a computer/smart phone in the first place!
Since the Florida Supreme Court has basically closed all the courts until May 29th regarding VoP’s I am sure these types of motions will not be the first order of business on the judge’s docket.
No, if therapy moves has to move to a program like Zoom, my husband will not be attending! Too much red tape, cost, and time.
This is not uniform. Everyone’s conditions are different. Some say “other than with permission from Probation”, some require a “safety plan”, some require monitoring software.
The therapist might just have to do one-on-ones by phone.
Well its also about telehealth: you click on a link and you get the session.
Zoom is an emailed link so its not really a signin you click the invite. Its not somewhere you post or search. You get invited to a meeting and that simple
How would or could Or should you register that? Or any telehealth link?
Registrants are not required to register a telehealth link at all.
Including a session on zoom? Ive gotten different responses and just dont see it falling into a social media umbrella. Its unnerving as its what work and its not a new identifier. You get an email and you click on the link.
When you click on the zoom link, does it prompt you to enter a name?
Yes, just like the telehealth conferencing
If a registrant uses Zoom for user-to-user social communication, then I assume they would have to register the screen name they use there. But not if they only use it for telehealth.
never believed in court proceedings by TV to easy for a judge to blow you off
The general public has a right to the courtrooms, not just the parties involved in litigation. I want the courts to explain how they will allow the general public to “attend” particularly in federal courtrooms because the federal courts do not allow video recording of their proceedings.
Federal appeals courts normally release audio, no?
Yes
Btw, what’s become of Mr Book’s DUI hearing due to this virus situation?
As I understand it, there are no witnesses or presentment of evidence at oral arguments in appellate courts. The ones I’ve seen just look like oral summaries of briefings and responses, with a few questions from the judges thrown in. While there is certainly value in making such arguments in person, I would still think the briefing is 10x more important than the oral summary.
I fully agree that skyping a trial (civil or criminal) wouldn’t be appropriate for the same reasons stated by FAC.
For what it’s worth…
Even when presenting to a panel of judges. Being able to read their demeanor is huge.