Preface: A Computational Scientist's Perspective on Appellate Technology

I. BACKGROUND Computer power has grown one trillion times since my early NASA days in the 1970s. Our first CDC 6400 supercomputer then boasted 200 kELOPS, (1) while Oak Ridge National Laboratory's new Titan supercomputer promises a [10.sup.12] speedup. This exponential rate of advance in computing power (2) spins off to benefit all society, including, potentially, the appellate courts. We often look back at advances made in the past and project forward from them, presuming that new advances will occur at the same rate. But our belief that computers advance at this linear rate is wrong; in fact, they are advancing exponentially. (3) As we ride this exponential curve, we cannot perceive that our exponential rate of technological advance in the next five years will by far outstrip that of our past five years--even in our appellate courts, which may not grasp just how fast computer technology is advancing. This rapid advance is likely to continue prompting appellate courts to adopt new technologies to meet the public's growing expectations for increased efficiency and accessibility. Why this rush to advance technology, with no end in sight? Human beings strive for power and control (by brawn or brain), whether over the elements, animals, or enemies. Computer technology seems to satisfy this need by offering us omnipotence via its omnipresence (bringing every comer of the world to us via Internet, webcams, tweets, and instant messages) and omniscience (enabling us to know all via Google, Siri or Wikipedia). The truth and quality of information returned varies, so ratings may soon steer us to the best information, allowing us to increase our power over, and control of, our personal and professional surroundings. Ventures tapping our thirst for such knowledge and power may succeed in ways that we can't yet imagine. Many such advances--the telepresence of evidence, for example--may become essential in future courts, updating the appellate process far beyond what we envision today. The four papers collected here describe how such digital advances have already reduced court time and costs in some appellate courts, and also project the future. II. II. SYNOPSIS OF THE SPECIAL-SECTION PAPERS I was indeed impressed and agree with nearly all concepts discussed in all papers. They complement each other, as three focus on different aspects of computer technology in the appellate courts--digital briefs, practice efficiencies, the paperless court in action--and the fourth provides an overview of appellate-court technology. A. Digital Briefs After reviewing some recent work in cognitive science, Professor Beazley compares reading and writing paper documents to working with digital records, warning that ready access, instant searches, and portability of digital records may distract, cause one to lose a feel of location in text, and tempt one to skim rather than read. Acknowledging, however, that "digital documents are not going away," (4) she suggests that judges and lawyers reading and writing documents used in digitally connected courts: * Use big screens to display complex information, mark text up digitally, and print complex text out before reading it; * Display a table of contents at the left of each screen to help locate each page viewed in the full document; * Read actively: use highlighting and electronic notes to mark critical passages, don't skim, and use (as a writer) or find (as a reader) the phrase that provides a pithy summary of each section; * Avoid distractions while reading: phone off, email alarm silenced, set aside time just for reading; and * Avoid creating distractions when writing: Be succinct, use references, and add hotlinks. B. Practice Efficiencies Mr. Delehanty, Mr. Llanes, Mr. Rath, and Ms. Sheff, a team of practicing lawyers and court-technology experts, describe the ways in which technology is being used to reduce the time and expense associated with appeals, and how it might play an increasing role in this effort if approved by appellate courts: * A pilot technology project saved one appellate court $2,000,000 after a $100,000 investment; * Widely available software for electronic case management, cloud storage for electronic records, and free web-based research portals and law blogs provide alternatives to both paper-based systems and first-generation proprietary research services; * Increasingly powerful laptops and tablets combined with web-based video services could reduce the costs of travel associated with oral argument, as could the use of web- or pod-casting technologies; and * Courts should explore various sources of funding--user fees, data fees, legislative appropriations, timesharing with other branches of government--that might provide a means of underwriting the expenses that accompany the adoption of new technologies. …