NIJ’s Research on Videoconferencing 

at Post-Arraignment Release Hearings 

Linda Truitt, Martin Novak, 

Amelia Cramer and Kevin Bowling 

1 Sept 2014 
Panel Overview 

• What is NIJ’

 s VTC project? 

What do we learn from project site visits? 

How have jurisdictions responded to challenges? 

Arizona’s Rules of Criminal Procedure 

Michigan’s Proposed Criteria and Standards 

Audience discussion 

•

•

•

2014 NAPSA Conference 2
Project Background 

Videoconferencing technologies at other CJS stages 

demonstrate reduced transportation costs, increased

prisoner security , expedited case processing, and 

reallocation of staff resources to agency priorities. 

Integration of remote technology into court processes

is generally limited to court interpretation services,

witness testimony, etc. 

Videoconferencing at the pretrial stage can reduce jail 

overcrowding and courthouse burden, and increase

defendant time at liberty to maintain community ties

and prepare for hearings. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 3
Project Objective 

Objective: Identify protocols that improve practices 

and maximize return on investment using 

videoconferencing to expedite post-arraignment 

release from custody for defendants who were 

arraigned and are being held in jail awaiting trial. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 4 
Research Questions 

1. What are the working standards for conducting and recording

videoconferences, archiving and making files accessible, and

 accommodating defendant, court, and jail needs and restrictions? 

2. How do the defendant, victim/witness, jail, and court respond to the

videoconferencing protocol? 

3. How are processes (access to counsel, court interpreters), short-term

outcomes (release decision), and long-term outcomes (failure to

appear) affected? 

4. What is the impact in terms of jail days, court hearing continuations,

failure to appear unit follow-ups, law enforcement warrant service,

etc.? 

5. What are the cost implications of implementation and maintenance? 

2014 NAPSA Conference 5
 

Project Design 

2014 NAPSA Conference

Phase 1: Blueprint 

Compile information on past and current videoconferencing applications 

via interviews and court/jail observation to identify key concerns and 

solutions (court rules) for protocol. 

Phase 2: Field Test 

Conduct implementation and assessment studies in two pilot sites (one 

rural), and modify protocol per field experience over a relatively short 

period via qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. 

Phase 3: Evaluation 

Submit final protocol to multiple new sites for self-implementation and 

support an objective cost-efficiency study over an extended period. 

6
 

Project Resources 

NIJ’s Expert Workgroup: 

Court technology and practicing experts who represent judges, 

prosecutors, public defenders, court administrators, court 

interpreters, pretrial release services and jail sheriffs. Tasks are to 

advise on blueprint development, operational protocol field testing, 

and implementation evaluation, and participate in meetings. 

Federal Colleagues and Invited Stakeholders: 

• BJA, BJS, SJI, and OVC 

American Bail Coalition, APPA, Association of Prosecuting 

Attorneys, IACP, NACDL, NAPSA, NLADA, National Sheriffs 

Association 

•

2014 NAPSA Conference 7
 

Phase 1 Tasks 

FY2013 Contract: 

Selected ICF International to assist NIJ on Phase 1. 

NIJ Expert Workgroup Meetings: 

Meet to review project plans and work products with Federal and 

other stakeholders observers. 

Information Collection from Jurisdictions: 

Calls for information on past/current practices, and site visits to 

observe remote technology in court and detention settings. 

Work Products: 

Compile information resources and summarize findings; and, 

Document protocol elements, principles, and recommendations. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 8
 

•

–

•

–

–

–

2014 NAPSA Conference 9

Site Visits 

Purpose 

Review Videoconferencing Protocol Options and 

Considerations 

Objectives 

Conduct in-person meetings with court, jail, and other 

local agencies; 

Observe pretrial release hearings; and, 

Observe inmate management in pretrial detention jail 

facilities. 
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

• Locations 

– Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

• Montgomery County Courthouse 

Montgomery County Correctional Facility 

Montgomery County Court 38-1-20 (Magisterial 

Court) 

•

 

2014 NAPSA Conference 10

•
 

VTC Observation Protocol 

1. Equipment 

a. Setup 

Process 

b. Equipment 

Information 

c. Frame of 

Reference 

2014 NAPSA Conference 11
VTC Observation Protocol 

2. Audio 

a. Judge 

b. Defendant 

c. Prosecutor 

d. Bailiff 

e. Others 

2014 NAPSA Conference 12
VTC Observation Protocol 

3. Visual 

 a. View (Panoramic?) 

b. Describe What You Can see 

4. Defendant 

a. Where is defendant counsel? 

b. Who is with defendant? 

c. How does defendant communicate with 

attorney? 

2014 NAPSA Conference 13
5. 

a.

•

b.

14

VTC Observation Protocol 

VTC versus Traditional 

What are the differences? 

Does technology help or hinder the 

process? 

Technology related problems or issues? 

2014 NAPSA Conference
 

Arizona’s Experience 

New Rule 1.6 

Rules of Criminal Procedure 

“Interactive Audiovisual Systems” 

2014 NAPSA Conference 15

New Rule 1.6 
 Arizona’s Experience 

2014 NAPSA Conference 16

Constitutional case law concerning Due Process 

and the Confrontation Clause presented a test:

!"#$%&'()&*++#,)%-,&.(/,0+*$&*1,)2+)&34"5&'()&

+"#4'4""5&*2%&(0,&*..)*4*2+)&*'&*&.*46+#$*4&

.4"+))%027&1/&80%)"9&05.*+'&(0,&*10$0'/&'"&%)3)2%&

*7*02,'&'()&+(*47):&
 Arizona’s Experience 

17

“Any interactive audiovisual system 

must meet or exceed minimum 

operational guidelines adopted by the 

Administrative Office of the Courts.” 

2014 NAPSA Conference
Justice Systems Research Division 18 
 

2014 NAPSA Conference 19 

Specific 

Requirements 

Arizona’s Experience 
 

 

Arizona’s Experience 

Requirements: 

1. Court and parties all must be able to 

view and converse with each other 

simultaneously 

20

2014 NAPSA Conference
 

 

Arizona’s Experience 

Requirements: 

2. Full record of the 

proceedings must 

still be made as 

provided in other 

statutes and rules. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 21
 

 

Arizona’s Experience 

Requirements: 

3. Provisions must be made allowing

for confidential communications 

between defendant and 

defense counsel before, 

during and immediately 

after the proceeding. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 22
 

 

 

Requirements: 

4. Victims must have 

a means to view 

and participate in 

the proceedings. 

Arizona’s Experience 

2014 NAPSA Conference 23
 

 

Arizona’s Experience 

Requirements: 

5. Victims’ rights laws must be complied with 

(including victim impact statements being 

interpreted). 

2014 NAPSA Conference 24
 

 

Arizona’s Experience 

Requirements: 

6. The public must have a means to view the 

proceedings. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 25
 

 

 

Requirements: 

7. Provisions must be made for the use of 

interpreter services when necessary for 

non-English speakers and hearing-impaired 

defendants (and victims), with the 

interpreter present with the defendant and 

both appearing simultaneously. 

Arizona’s Experience 

2014 NAPSA Conference 26
 Arizona’s Experience 

Absent extraordinary circumstances and the 

parties’ consent, appearance by 

videoconference is precluded for trials, 

contested probation violation hearings, felony 

sentencing hearings, and felony probation 

disposition hearings. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 27
 Arizona’s Experience 

The Court is the one with discretion to allow 

appearance by an interactive audiovisual 

system at: initial appearances, arraignments in 

misdemeanor cases; not-guilty plea 

arraignments in felony cases; hearings on 

motions to continue; hearings on uncontested 

motions; pretrial or status conferences; 

misdemeanor changes of plea; and informal 

conferences. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 28
Michigan’s Experience with 

Interactive Video Technology (IVT) 

Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam circumspice 

2014 NAPSA Conference 29 
• Much like other states that have experimented with 

interactive video technology, Michigan’s experience 

has been mixed. 

• We clearly have had more Learning Experiences 

than Successes, but during the past 20 years we 

have learned many lessons and our video processes 

are more mature as a result. 

2014 NAPSA Conference 30 
Michigan’s Decentralized Court System 

31 

Supreme Court 

Appeals Court 

Circuit Court (57) 

District Court (98) 

Probate Court (78) 

Municipal Court (4)

"If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you." 

•

•

•

•

•

•

2014 NAPSA Conference
Early IVT Experimentation 

• Pilot Projects began in 1990 with Michigan

Supreme Court approval (AO 1990-1) 

Initial focus on criminal preliminary

examination hearings in the District Courts 

Often primitive connections via ISDN 

Expanded use authorized in AO 2001-4 for 

involuntary commitments, child protective

proceedings, juvenile proceedings 

Early SCAO standards allowed use of ISDN,

T-1, Fiber Optics, Microwave 

Required transmission speed of 384 KBS 

and minimum frame refresh of 30 frames per

second 

•

•

•

•

•

32 2014 NAPSA Conference
IVT Authorization via 

Michigan Court Rule (MCR) 

• MCR 3.210 – Circuit Court; Domestic Relation Cases 

– hearings and trials 

• MCR 3.904 – Circuit Court; Delinquency Proceedings 

– post dispositional reviews and limited dispositional hearings 

• MCR 3.904 – Circuit Court; Child Protective Proceedings 

– preliminary hearings and review hearings 

• MCR 5.738a – Probate Court 

– involuntary treatment, continuing MH treatment, 

guardianships in MH facilities 

33 2014 NAPSA Conference
2014 NAPSA Conference 34 

• MCR 6.006(A) – Circuit/District Court; Criminal 

– initial arraignments 

pretrial conferences 

Pleas 

sentencing for misdemeanor offenses 

show cause hearings 

waivers and adjournments of extradition 

referrals for forensic determination of competency 

waivers and adjournments of preliminary 

examinations. 

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

IVT Authorization for 

Adult Criminal Proceedings 
•

–

–

–

35 

IVT Authorization for 

Prelim Exam Witness Testimony 

MCR 6.006(B) – District Court; Criminal 

Defendant in the Courtroom - Preliminary 

Examinations 

IVT for expert witness 

IVT for other witnesses, upon showing of good cause 

2014 NAPSA Conference
 

IVT Authorization for 

Other Proceedings 

• MCR 6.006(C) – Circuit/District Court; Criminal 

• Defendant in the Courtroom 

– evidentiary hearings, competency hearings, 

sentencings, probation revocation proceedings, and 

proceedings to revoke a sentence that does not entail 

an adjudication of guilt 

– with the consent of the parties, trials 

36 2014 NAPSA Conference
Proposed MCR 8.124 

Videoconferencing (Excerpt) 

• Criteria for Videoconferencing 

1. IVT equipment capabilities 

2. Whether any undue prejudice would result 

3. The convenience of the parties/witness and the cost 

of producing the witness 

4. Whether the procedure would allow for full and 

effective cross-examination 

5. Whether the dignity, solemnity, and decorum of the 

courtroom would tend to impress upon the witness 

the duty to testify truthfully. 

37 2014 NAPSA Conference
Proposed MCR 8.124 

Videoconferencing (Excerpt) 

6. Whether a physical liberty or other fundamental interest is at

stake 

7. Whether the court can sufficiently control the proceedings at the 

remote location 

8. Whether the use of IVT presents the person at a remote 

location in a diminished or distorted sense that negatively 

reflects upon the individual 

9. Whether the use of IVT diminishes or detracts from the dignity, 

solemnity, and formality of the proceeding and undermines the 

integrity, fairness, or effectiveness of the proceeding 

10. Whether the person appearing by IVT presents a significant 

security risk to transport and be present physically in the 

courtroom 

38 2014 NAPSA Conference
Proposed MCR 8.124 

Videoconferencing (Excerpt) 

11. Whether the parties or

witnesses have waived 

personal appearance or

stipulated to IVT 

12. The proximity of the IVT 

request date to the

proposed appearance date

13. Any other factors that the

court may determine to be

relevant 

39 2014 NAPSA Conference
2014 NAPSA Conference

Proposed Standards 

For Michigan Courts 

1. IVT capability at 30fps and 4CIF video quality 

2. Either over the air or direct in-line court recording 

3. Participants shall be able to see, hear, and communicate 

4. Participants shall be able to see, hear, and otherwise 

observe physical evidence or exhibits presented 

5. Video and sound quality shall allow participants to observe 

the demeanor and nonverbal communications of other 

participants 

6. Courtroom camera shall have the capability to scan the 

courtroom 

40 
2014 NAPSA Conference

Proposed Standards 

For Michigan Courts 

7. In criminal matters, counsel for a defendant shall have the 

option to be physically present with the client at the remote 

location. Parties and counsel at remote locations shall be able 

to mute the microphone system. 

8. In criminal matters, if the defendant and counsel are not in 

each other’s physical presence, they shall be able to have 

private, confidential communication during the proceeding. 

9. If applicable, there shall be a means by which documents 

can be transmitted between the courtroom and the remote 

location. 

41 
Audience Discussion 

2014 NAPSA Conference 42 
Linda.Truitt@usdoj.gov 

Martin.Novak@usdoj.gov 

2014 NAPSA Conference 43 
44 

Discussion Issues 

1. Conducting and recording

videoconferences 

– Consent of parties to avoid

“confrontation clause” issues? 

Equipment – is it intuitive/user 

friendly? 

Standard video vs HD? 

Transmission quality? 

Is system secure? 

Can non-verbal communication 

be adequately viewed? 

–

–

–

–

–

2014 NAPSA Conference
Discussion Issues 

2. Storing, archiving and making transcripts, audio and 

video recordings accessible 

– Are backup systems in place to ensure system 

integrity? 

Is access by authorized users only? 

Are there methods to securely transmit recordings? 

–

–

45 2014 NAPSA Conference
Discussion Issues 

3. Accommodating defendant, court, and jail needs/ 

restrictions 

– Access to counsel 

Victim/witness involvement 

Non-English and ASL interpretation 

Quality communication and interpersonal interaction 

Sufficient courtroom and jail facility resources and 

equipment 

Inmate security 

Public access to hearings 

–

–

–

–

–

–

46 2014 NAPSA Conference
Discussion Issues 

4. Implementing the videoconferencing system 

– System administration and maintenance (e.g., help

desk) 

As courts experience greater demand for technology, 

internal staff capabilities must expand to provide 

operational expertise 

Remote help desks are insufficient when system 

crashes and court needs to be in session 

In-house and/or contracted vendor capabilities and 

costs 

Many courts (either state or locally funded) may find 

proposed video standards to be cost prohibitive 

–

–

–

–

47 2014 NAPSA Conference
Discussion Issues 

5. Court Technology Framework – Developed by 

COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee 

2014 NAPSA Conference 48