There has been a drastic increase in the use of video teleconferencing (VTC) in judicial proceedings since the COVID-19 pandemic, which has sparked debate about the appropriateness of incorporating this new technology into courts’ routine operations. A systematic review of state laws on using video teleconferencing technology in criminal court proceedings shows courts across the United States are cautiously embracing the convenience of remote proceedings. However, legislators are more conservative about using video teleconferencing in higher-stakes proceedings such as evidentiary hearings and sentencing hearings, by either prohibiting the use or requiring the parties’ consent. Other aspects of state statutes include special rules for child witnesses, expert witnesses, and incarcerated individuals.
AbuA. F. (2020). Remote justice: Confronting the use of video teleconference testimony in Massachusetts criminal trials. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34(1), 39.
2.
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. (2011). PA courts expand use of video conferencing, saving $21 million annually in defendant transportation costs.
3.
AggarwalA. D.WaliaD. S.AggarwalK. K.OberoiS. S.SinghP.MehtaN.KamalC. (2020). Court evidence via video conferencing by doctors: Savings of time, money and energy. National Medical Journal of India, 33(5), 265–270.
4.
ArishinaY.HuY. H. F.HoppaM. A. (2022). A study of video conferencing software risks and mitigation strategies. Journal of the Colloquium for Information Systems Security Education, 9(1), 1–10.
5.
AriturkD.CrozierW. E.GarrettB. L. (2020). Virtual criminal courts. University of Chicago Law Review Online, 2020, 57–69.
6.
BabcockE.JohansenK. (2011). Remote justice? Expanding the use of interactive video teleconference in Minnesota criminal proceedings. William Mitchell Law Review, 37(2), 17.
7.
BaldwinJ. M.EasseyJ. M.BrookeE. J. (2020). Court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 743–758.
8.
BandesS. A.FeigensonN. (2020). Virtual trials: Necessity, invention, and the evolution of the courtroom. Buffalo Law Review, 68, 1275–1352.
9.
BannonA. L.AdelsteinJ. (2020). The impact of video proceedings on fairness and access to justice in court. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
10.
BannonA. L.KeithD. (2021). Remote court: Principles for virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Northwestern University Law Review, 115, 1875.
11.
BelloneE. T. (2013). Private attorney-client communications and the effect of videoconferencing in the courtroom. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 8(1), 24.
12.
BibasS. (2011). The myth of the fully informed rational actor. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Carey Law, 914.
13.
ChristiaensJ.ÇalikH.WautersT.Chirayil ChandrasekharanR.Vanden BergheG. (2020). The prisoner transportation problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 284(3), 1058–1073.
14.
CiminoE. F.MakarZ.NovakN. (2014). Charm city televised & dehumanized: How CCTV bail reviews violate due process. University of Baltimore Law Forum, 45(1), 57.
15.
ClarkeS. E. D.SmithJ. (2021). Virtual court proceedings in North Carolina: Adapting to a global pandemic. University of North Carolina School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab.
16.
ColeR. (2024). Inter-rater reliability methods in qualitative case study research. Sociological Methods & Research, 53(4), 1944–1975.
17.
DiamondS. S.BowmanL. E.WongM.PattonM. M. (2010). Efficiency and cost: The impact of videoconferenced hearings on bail decisions.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 869.
18.
DobbieW.GoldinJ.YangC. S. (2018). The effects of pre-trial detention on conviction, future crime, and employment: Evidence from randomly assigned judges. American Economic Review, 108(2), 201–240.
19.
DraperB. M. (2021). And justice for none: How COVID-19 is crippling the criminal jury right. Boston College Law Review, 62, 1–10.
20.
FeigensonN. (2022). Adjudication on Zoom and beyond: Human interaction in virtual courts. Washburn Law Journal, 62, 461.
21.
Given-WilsonZ.MemonA. (2022). Seeing is believing? A systematic review of credibility perceptions of live and remote video-mediated communication in legal settings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(6), 1168–1176.
22.
GoodmanG. S.TobeyA. E.Batterman-FaunceJ. M.OrcuttH.ThomasS.ShapiroC.SachsenmaierT. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children’s eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22(2), 165–203.
23.
GourdetC.WitwerA. R.LangtonL.BanksD.PlantyM.g WoodsD.JacksonB. A. (2020). Court appearances in criminal proceedings through telepresence. RAND Corporation.
24.
HenricksonK. K. (2021). COVID-19 & the courts: The pandemic’s impact on the practice of litigation and considerations for future remote proceedings. The Review of Litigation, 40, 305.
25.
JohnsonM. T.WigginsE. C. (2006). Videoconferencing in criminal proceedings: Legal and empirical Issues and directions for research. Law & Policy, 28(2), 211–227.
26.
JonesA. C.BatastiniA. B.PatelM. B.SaccoD. F.WarlickC. A. (2023). Does convenience come with a price? The impact of remote testimony on perceptions of expert credibility. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(2), 197–215.
27.
JurvaG. (2021). The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on state & local courts study 2021: A look at remote hearings, legal technology, case backlogs, and access to justice. Thomson Reuters Institute.
28.
KennistonC. W. (2015). You may call your next witness: Allowing adult rape victims to testify via two-way video conferencing systems. Journal of High Technology, 16, 96.
29.
KoppelS.BerginT.RopacR.RandolphI.JosephH. (2022). Examining the causal effect of pretrial detention on case outcomes: A judge fixed effect instrumental variable approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 20, 439–456.
30.
KunkelT.RayB.BryantK. (2021). Adoption of virtual services in judicially led diversion programs: Preliminary survey findings. Rulo Strategies.
31.
LandströmS.GranhagP. A. (2010). In-court versus out-of-court testimonies: Children’s experiences and adults’ assessments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(7), 941–955.
32.
LandströmS.GranhagP. A.HartwigM. (2005). Witnesses appearing live versus on video: Effects on observers’ perception, veracity assessments and memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 913–933.
33.
LandströmS.GranhagP. A.HartwigM. (2007). Children’s live and videotaped testimonies: How presentation mode affects observers’ perception, assessment, and memory. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12(2), 333–348.
34.
LedererF. I. (2000). The effect of courtroom technologies on and in appellate proceedings and courtrooms. The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 2(2), 251.
35.
LedererF. I. (2021). The evolving technology-augmented courtroom before, during, and after the pandemic. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 23(2), 301–339.
36.
LeslieE.PopeN. G. (2017). The unintended impact of pretrial detention on case outcomes: Evidence from New York City arraignments. The Journal of Law and Economics, 60(3), 529–557.
37.
McKayC. (2018). Video links from prison: Court “appearance” within carceral space. Law, Culture, and the Humanities, 14(2), 242–262.
38.
MetzgerP. R.GuggenmosG. J. (2020). COVID-19 and the ruralization of US criminal court systems. University of Chicago Law Review Online 70.
39.
MillerR. D. (1991). The presentation of expert testimony via live audio-visual communication. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 19(1), 5–20.
40.
MorelandA.HerlihyC.TynanM. A.SunshineG.McCordR. F.HiltonC.PooveyJ.WernerA. K.JonesC. D.FulmerE. B.GundlapalliA. V.StrosniderH.PotvienA.GarcíaM. C.HoneycuttS.BaldwinG., CDC Public Health Law Program, & CDC COVID-19 Response Team, Mitigation Policy Analysis Unit. (2020). Timing of state and territorial COVID—19 stay—at—home orders and changes in population movement—United States, March 1-May 31, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(35), 1198–1203.
41.
MoriartyL. J. (2017). Criminal justice technology in the 21st century (3rd ed.). Charles C Thomas Publisher.
42.
NirE.MusialJ. (2022). Zooming in: Courtrooms and defendants’ rights during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social & Legal Studies, 31(5), 725–745.
43.
OrcuttH. K.GoodmanG. S.TobeyA. E.Batterman-FaunceJ. M.ThomasS. (2001). Detecting deception in children’s testimony: Factfinders’ abilities to reach the truth in open court and closed-circuit trials. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 339–372.
44.
PearceP. (1996). Implementation plan for video arraignment in Hamilton County Indiana. Institute for Court Management.
45.
PoulinA. B. (2004). Criminal justice and videoconferencing technology: The remote defendant. Tulane Law Review, 78, 1089.
46.
RedlichA. D.SummersA. (2012). Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent pleas: Understanding the plea inquiry. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(4), 626.
RothM. D. (2000). Laissez-faire videoconferencing: Remote witness testimony and adversarial truth. UCLA Law Review, 48(1), 185–220.
49.
RowdenE.WallaceA. (2018). Performing expertise: The design of audiovisual links and the construction of the remote expert witness in court. Social & Legal Studies, 28(5), 698–718.
50.
Shubik-RichardsC.StemenD.EichelL. (2011). Philadelphia’s less crowded, less costly jails: Taking stock of a year of changing and the challenges that remain. Pew Charitable Trusts.
51.
StevensonM. T. (2018). Distortion of justice: How the inability to pay bail affects case outcomes. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 34(4), 511–542.
52.
TurnerJ. I. (2021). Remote criminal justice. Texas Tech Law Review, 53, 197.
53.
TurnerJ. I. (2022). Virtual guilty pleas. Journal of Constitutional Law, 24, 211.
54.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2009, March13). EOIR’s video teleconferencing initiative.
55.
VavoneseL. B.LingE.JoyR.KoborS. (2020). How video changes the conversation: Social science research on communication over video and implications for the criminal courtroom. Center for Court Innovation.
56.
WalshF. M.WalshE. M. (2007). Effective processing or assembly-line justice—The use of teleconferencing in asylum removal hearings. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 22(2), 259–284.
57.
YamagataH.FoxD. (2017). Evaluating the use of videoconferencing technology in domestic violence ex parte hearings: Assessing procedural consistency. Justice System Journal, 38(2), 135–148.
