The defense attorney and client cannot see or hear anything happening in the courtroom beyond the judge's face at the microphone. The attorney has less information than everyone in the courtroom and no access to the court file for review. There is a sound delay in conjunction with a jittery picture that makes the proceeding appear like a badly dubbed Godzilla movie. The somber and dignified aura of the courtroom is lost for everyone, particularly the defendant. Defendants are often confused by the bad communication channel and have to rely even more on their attorneys to explain what happened.
Logistical issues regarding attorney efficiency are also of concern.
A defender with several court appearances may be stuck across the street at the jail waiting to be seen on video rather than checking in with the arraignment court and returning later after appearing on other matters. There is no advantage to any felony defendant to waive physical presence in the courtroom. Video court, and particularly its extension to felony cases, should be resisted by defenders based on common decency and fairness. If two-way video is to be incorporated into the courtroom, it must be done without banishing the very human beings these hearings are supposed to be about. The Standards Committee of the ABA's Criminal Justice Section is currently in the process of revising its standards regarding the special functions of the trial judge in criminal cases.