Courtroom Technology: The Courthouse Spec's May Be Just A Click Away

In the past several years, new technology, including video evidence presentation systems, video conferencing and electronic transcription systems, have been installed in federal and state courts across the nation. Courtrooms today vary a great deal not only in size and layout, but especially with regard to the types of technology made available. All of these factors significantly affect the presentation strategy a lawyer will use during a trial. When brainstorming presentation strategy, courtroom presenters consider the most subtle factors including, the amount of ambient light, the distance and line of sight between counsel and trier of fact and the location of monitors and screens. Most lawyers agree that it is a great advantage to argue a case in a familiar setting; something as trivial as showing a witness where he or she will sit in the courtroom prior to trial can be important.

That said, it is common for a firm to send a scout to check out a courtroom to determine relevant courtroom information ' a practice which tends to be time consuming and costly. The Courtroom Information Project, a Web-based system providing courtroom information to anyone with access to the Internet, accumulates and provides technological and other helpful information, which will ideally reduce unnecessary scouting expenditures and further enable swift and fair court proceedings. As courtrooms continue to follow the trend of going 'high tech,' it is important for litigators to know what resources are available. This information is not only beneficial to the lawyer trying a case, but to all parties involved.

Located at the College of William and Mary, the Courtroom Information Project is part of Courtroom 21 Project, the world leader in court technology demonstration, experimentation, training and education. The high volume of patent, bankruptcy and corporate cases that take place in Delaware, and the law firms throughout the country participating in these cases, have significantly contributed to the conception of the Courtroom Information Project. Short of scouting a courtroom beforehand, out-of-state lawyers are not able to construct an effective presentation strategy; this new system provides information that helps to level the playing field.

Delaware played a major role in the development of the Courtroom Information Project. It was the first jurisdiction to endorse the project under Judge Stapleton, then-Chief Judge of the Third Circuit, in 2000. The Project was then referred to the Security and Facilities Committee of the Federal Judicial Conference, where it received approval from Judge Roth, also of the Third Circuit, in November of 2001. In February of 2002, Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey reported that the State of Delaware had decided to become the First State to endorse the Courtroom Information Project. Since that brief time, 34 federal courts and 20 state courts have registered.

The Project is funded by corporate and law firm sponsors. The funding has enabled the creation of a public Web site to provide members of the bar the visual and technological information they need in preparing for trial in participating courtrooms throughout the United States.

As an additional benefit to participation, the Courtroom Information Project has created a newsletter to be distributed to participating courts every two months. The newsletter will be used to inform readers of new participating courts, highlight a specific technology used in the courts and how it serves to enhance the court system, feature a participating court and also will address feedback from participating members. One question that was addressed and deserves mentioning: Does the Courtroom Information Project still apply to those courts that don't have high technology? The answer is an emphatic yes. Lawyers rely on information including the size of the courtroom, where the court members sit in relation to each other and how much space is available for graphic presentation set-ups ' questions which can be answered with the photographs posted on the Project's Web site. Not only does participation in the Project save travel time and money for litigators, courts save the time and effort it takes to schedule courtroom scouting visits.

Brian Lalley, A/V Technical Specialist from the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, writes in the Web site's comment area, 'The Courtroom Information Web site has saved me hours if not days in allowing the District Court of Arizona to showcase the available equipment in our courtrooms. I have had several occasions to point attorneys and legal technology consultants from out of town to your Web site to show what our courtrooms look like and what technology is available. At some point, the District Court of Arizona will have a portion of our Web site dealing solely with technology in our individual courtrooms throughout the state. Until then, the Courtroom Information Project will be our resource.'

Although it is most likely that the primary users of the Web site will be law firms because their high volume of litigation and need to travel often, it will also serve as a resource to courts, affiliated vendors as well as courtroom architects looking for technology ideas. The site offers photographs and information on each participating courtroom's available technology, including computer whiteboards, counsel laptop projections or analog phones. The site will also list any restrictions posed by the courtroom. Digital photos of each participating courtroom are also provided from six specific vantage points: view from witness stand, view from judge's bench, view from defense table to witness stand, view from prosecution table to witness stand, view from jury box and view from entrance to the court. Once a court is registered, it has exclusive access to login and update its records and photos as necessary.

As awareness and participation of the Courtroom Information Project increases, we intend to provide information on participating international courts as well. Corporations and law firms interested in participating as sponsors should contact Richard K. Herrmann at Blank Rome.

Richard K. Herrmann is the Administrative Partner of the Wilmington, DE office of Blank Rome LLP. He concentrates his practice in the areas of technology, cyberlaw, commercial law, and intellectual property matters.

Federal Courts:
Alabama: Middle District Court of Alabama
Arizona: District Court of Arizona
Arkansas: Eastern District Court of Arkansas, Western District Court of Arkansas
Delaware: District Court of Delaware, District of Delaware Bankruptcy Court
Florida: Middle District Court of Florida
Illinois: Northern District Court of Illinois
Indiana: Northern District Court of Indiana, Southern District of Indiana
Iowa: Northern District of Iowa
Louisiana: Middle District of Louisiana
Maryland: District Court of Maryland
Massachusetts: District Court of Massachusetts
Michigan: Eastern District Court of Michigan
Minnesota: District Court of Minnesota
Mississippi: Southern District of Mississippi
Missouri: Western District Court of Missouri
North Carolina: Middle District Court of North Carolina, Eastern District of North Carolina
North Dakota: District Court of North Dakota
Ohio: Northern District Court of Ohio, Southern District Court of Ohio
Oklahoma: Northern District Court of Oklahoma
Oregon: District Court of Oregon
Pennsylvania: Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, Western District Court of Pennsylvania
Tennessee: Western District Court of Tennessee
Texas: Northern District Court of Texas, Southern District Court of Texas
Virginia: Eastern District Court of Virginia, Eastern District of Virginia Bankruptcy Court, Western District Court of Virginia, Western District of Virginia Bankruptcy Court
Washington, DC: District of Columbia

State Courts:
Alaska: 3rd Judicial District in Anchorage
Arizona: Superior Court of Maricopa County
California: Superior Court of Fresno County, Superior Court of Marin County, Superior Court of Orange County,    Superior Court of San Diego, Superior Court of San Mateo, Superior Court of Ventura County
Delaware: Supreme Court of Delaware
Florida: 4th Judicial Circuit Court in Green Cove Springs, 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida
Hawaii: First Judicial Circuit of Hawaii
Idaho: 4th Judicial District Court in Cascade
New Mexico: 2nd Judicial District Court of Albuquerque
South Carolina: 5th Circuit Court in Columbia
South Dakota: 2nd Circuit in Sioux Falls
Virginia: Chesterfield County Court, Fairfax County Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court
Washington, DC: Superior Court of Washington D.C.
Wisconsin: First Judicial Circuit Court of Milwaukee

In the past several years, new technology, including video evidence presentation systems, video conferencing and electronic transcription systems, have been installed in federal and state courts across the nation. Courtrooms today vary a great deal not only in size and layout, but especially with regard to the types of technology made available. All of these factors significantly affect the presentation strategy a lawyer will use during a trial. When brainstorming presentation strategy, courtroom presenters consider the most subtle factors including, the amount of ambient light, the distance and line of sight between counsel and trier of fact and the location of monitors and screens. Most lawyers agree that it is a great advantage to argue a case in a familiar setting; something as trivial as showing a witness where he or she will sit in the courtroom prior to trial can be important.

That said, it is common for a firm to send a scout to check out a courtroom to determine relevant courtroom information ' a practice which tends to be time consuming and costly. The Courtroom Information Project, a Web-based system providing courtroom information to anyone with access to the Internet, accumulates and provides technological and other helpful information, which will ideally reduce unnecessary scouting expenditures and further enable swift and fair court proceedings. As courtrooms continue to follow the trend of going 'high tech,' it is important for litigators to know what resources are available. This information is not only beneficial to the lawyer trying a case, but to all parties involved.

Located at the College of William and Mary, the Courtroom Information Project is part of Courtroom 21 Project, the world leader in court technology demonstration, experimentation, training and education. The high volume of patent, bankruptcy and corporate cases that take place in Delaware, and the law firms throughout the country participating in these cases, have significantly contributed to the conception of the Courtroom Information Project. Short of scouting a courtroom beforehand, out-of-state lawyers are not able to construct an effective presentation strategy; this new system provides information that helps to level the playing field.

Delaware played a major role in the development of the Courtroom Information Project. It was the first jurisdiction to endorse the project under Judge Stapleton, then-Chief Judge of the Third Circuit, in 2000. The Project was then referred to the Security and Facilities Committee of the Federal Judicial Conference, where it received approval from Judge Roth, also of the Third Circuit, in November of 2001. In February of 2002, Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey reported that the State of Delaware had decided to become the First State to endorse the Courtroom Information Project. Since that brief time, 34 federal courts and 20 state courts have registered.

The Project is funded by corporate and law firm sponsors. The funding has enabled the creation of a public Web site to provide members of the bar the visual and technological information they need in preparing for trial in participating courtrooms throughout the United States.

As an additional benefit to participation, the Courtroom Information Project has created a newsletter to be distributed to participating courts every two months. The newsletter will be used to inform readers of new participating courts, highlight a specific technology used in the courts and how it serves to enhance the court system, feature a participating court and also will address feedback from participating members. One question that was addressed and deserves mentioning: Does the Courtroom Information Project still apply to those courts that don't have high technology? The answer is an emphatic yes. Lawyers rely on information including the size of the courtroom, where the court members sit in relation to each other and how much space is available for graphic presentation set-ups ' questions which can be answered with the photographs posted on the Project's Web site. Not only does participation in the Project save travel time and money for litigators, courts save the time and effort it takes to schedule courtroom scouting visits.

Brian Lalley, A/V Technical Specialist from the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, writes in the Web site's comment area, 'The Courtroom Information Web site has saved me hours if not days in allowing the District Court of Arizona to showcase the available equipment in our courtrooms. I have had several occasions to point attorneys and legal technology consultants from out of town to your Web site to show what our courtrooms look like and what technology is available. At some point, the District Court of Arizona will have a portion of our Web site dealing solely with technology in our individual courtrooms throughout the state. Until then, the Courtroom Information Project will be our resource.'

Although it is most likely that the primary users of the Web site will be law firms because their high volume of litigation and need to travel often, it will also serve as a resource to courts, affiliated vendors as well as courtroom architects looking for technology ideas. The site offers photographs and information on each participating courtroom's available technology, including computer whiteboards, counsel laptop projections or analog phones. The site will also list any restrictions posed by the courtroom. Digital photos of each participating courtroom are also provided from six specific vantage points: view from witness stand, view from judge's bench, view from defense table to witness stand, view from prosecution table to witness stand, view from jury box and view from entrance to the court. Once a court is registered, it has exclusive access to login and update its records and photos as necessary.

As awareness and participation of the Courtroom Information Project increases, we intend to provide information on participating international courts as well. Corporations and law firms interested in participating as sponsors should contact Richard K. Herrmann at Blank Rome.

Richard K. Herrmann is the Administrative Partner of the Wilmington, DE office of Blank Rome LLP. He concentrates his practice in the areas of technology, cyberlaw, commercial law, and intellectual property matters.

Federal Courts:
Alabama: Middle District Court of Alabama
Arizona: District Court of Arizona
Arkansas: Eastern District Court of Arkansas, Western District Court of Arkansas
Delaware: District Court of Delaware, District of Delaware Bankruptcy Court
Florida: Middle District Court of Florida
Illinois: Northern District Court of Illinois
Indiana: Northern District Court of Indiana, Southern District of Indiana
Iowa: Northern District of Iowa
Louisiana: Middle District of Louisiana
Maryland: District Court of Maryland
Massachusetts: District Court of Massachusetts
Michigan: Eastern District Court of Michigan
Minnesota: District Court of Minnesota
Mississippi: Southern District of Mississippi
Missouri: Western District Court of Missouri
North Carolina: Middle District Court of North Carolina, Eastern District of North Carolina
North Dakota: District Court of North Dakota
Ohio: Northern District Court of Ohio, Southern District Court of Ohio
Oklahoma: Northern District Court of Oklahoma
Oregon: District Court of Oregon
Pennsylvania: Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, Western District Court of Pennsylvania
Tennessee: Western District Court of Tennessee
Texas: Northern District Court of Texas, Southern District Court of Texas
Virginia: Eastern District Court of Virginia, Eastern District of Virginia Bankruptcy Court, Western District Court of Virginia, Western District of Virginia Bankruptcy Court
Washington, DC: District of Columbia

State Courts:
Alaska: 3rd Judicial District in Anchorage
Arizona: Superior Court of Maricopa County
California: Superior Court of Fresno County, Superior Court of Marin County, Superior Court of Orange County,    Superior Court of San Diego, Superior Court of San Mateo, Superior Court of Ventura County
Delaware: Supreme Court of Delaware
Florida: 4th Judicial Circuit Court in Green Cove Springs, 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida
Hawaii: First Judicial Circuit of Hawaii
Idaho: 4th Judicial District Court in Cascade
New Mexico: 2nd Judicial District Court of Albuquerque
South Carolina: 5th Circuit Court in Columbia
South Dakota: 2nd Circuit in Sioux Falls
Virginia: Chesterfield County Court, Fairfax County Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court
Washington, DC: Superior Court of Washington D.C.
Wisconsin: First Judicial Circuit Court of Milwaukee