Videoconferencing technology has no place in the courtroom as long as it fails to protect defendants’ rights.
If you attend a bail hearing in Baltimore City, you will find yourself in a small room with a judge, a pre-trial services representative, defense attorneys, family and friends of the defendants, and men (or women) in yellow jumpsuits virtually appearing in the courtroom from the Central Booking Intake Facility.
I attended the men’s bail hearings at the Edward F. Borgerding District Court in northwest Baltimore on the first Wednesday in April. The hearings, beginning shortly after 11am, took place in courtroom four with Judge Halee F. Weinstein presiding.
The hearing operates in a fashion that feels impersonal and unjust. First, Weinstein calls the hearing to order and follows up with a “Good morning, gentleman. Can you hear me?” Her question feels more consequential than ever. An audio issue is highly possible and would further exacerbate an already troubling process.
Technology brings technical issues.
The conferencing technology also decreases the effectiveness of counsel. Attorneys may have a huge caseload leaving them with limited time to speak with their clients and prep the morning of the hearing. During the hearing, the defendant and attorney cannot consult with one another privately, if at all.
Next, Weinstein clarifies detainees’ rights and proceeds. She calls Mr. Stevens, the day’s first defendant. An attorney from the Public Defender’s Office goes before the judge. Weinstein lists the charges against Stevens, prior convictions, and the maximum penalty. Stevens faces life for first-degree murder.
A pre-trial agent discloses information collected at the pre-trial interview adding whether it has been verified and by whom. Then, the agent shares the bail commissioner’s recommendation. Up next is the attorney. Stevens had admitted to the incident and helped police locate the body. Because her client was forthcoming, the attorney believes he should be released. The judge disagrees saying that “No conditions of release would ensure public safety or [his] appearance in court.” The attorney says thank you before abruptly leaving. Someone in yellow jumpsuit replaces Stevens.
Most of the decisions result in “held without bail.”
--
Efficiency and cost savings motivate the use of videoconferencing technology. The technology may eliminate the costs and contingencies of transporting defendants to and from courthouses; but these benefits come at the expense of defendants’ constitutional rights and procedural protections.
Mr. Simpson is the second or third defendant that Wednesday. Someone shot Simpson seven times essentially giving him up to the police; he could not flee like the other gunman had. A bullet from the shooting lodged in his side. Simpson should have been in surgery during the bail hearing.
Simpson’s defense attorney attempts to humanize her client mentioning his regular church attendance and his relationship with his soon-to-be three year old. Yet, Simpson is powerless. His predicament and the accompanying yellow jumpsuits label him guilty.
It is not hard to imagine that Simpson’s physical presence and testimony would have added light to his attorney’s portrait.
The Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment safeguards against actions at all levels of government that may deprive people of their right to life, liberty, or property. Fair procedures are called upon to protect against arbitrary, inaccurate, or unjustified decisions.
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 provides certain protections at detention hearings for pre-trial detainees; these are individuals charged with serious crimes that the government has sufficiently proven that no release conditions would ensure public safety. The procedural protections include the right to request counsel, to testify, to present witnesses, to proffer evidence, and to cross-examine other witnesses. These go hand-in-hand with due process.
Defendants sit on the sidelines of their own hearings. Once the judge begins speaking and the attorney attempts, in vain, to plead her client’s case, defendants fade into the background. In moments, a judge makes a critical decision and moves on. Defendants suffer a loss of liberty and dignity.
Videoconferencing technology perpetuates the dehumanization of the disadvantaged. It is time the local government took notice.
In 2017, the Maryland Court of Appeals adopted a rule to reform bail operations which largely disadvantaged low-income folks. The law aimed to reduce the use of excessive bail. While this goal was largely achieved, the percentage of people held without bail increased. This has not necessarily made communities safer.
The removal of VC technology would address inequities in the criminal justice system and perhaps, amplify the gains of the 2017 reform.