Get best of the week

How Courts in the USA Are Held Through Zoom, and Why This Is Considered A Problem



Whenever possible, public places in US cities are quarantined. It affected cafes, restaurants, gyms, stadiums. And finally, it came to the courts. Almost every court in the country has either closed or reduced the consideration of cases to the minimum. But basically -  left online . The meetings now go through Zoom, with a judge, prosecutor, lawyer, defendant, and even jurors, relaxed at home.

This is an unprecedented move for the judiciary, which usually adapts so slowly to new technologies. But human rights defenders from such a change in panic.

What are the problems?


One of the first - in the USA it is very important that the public has the opportunity to watch the meetings. It is not only the fascination of the processes themselves, it is more important that public trust in institutions is undermined if independent witnesses cannot see and evaluate what is happening. It is believed that the presence of the public imposes a certain responsibility on judges and prosecutors, so that the cases of the defendants are treated more carefully.



In 1984, in Waller v. Georgia , the US Supreme Court ruled that public litigation was a “valuable and integral part” of the law enforcement system. Especially for the accused. Because "the presence of interested viewers increases the sense of responsibility of all those present, reminds them of the importance of their functions."

Those who want to watch a court hearing in New York must now go to the building and sit there in front of a large screen, potentially risking infection or becoming a spread of the virus. In Los Angeles and Miami, officials have not given the public a single option to join their video conferencing. In New Orleans, everything depends on the specific judges: sometimes there is public access, but more often everything is decided “behind closed doors”. The validity of the decision can be checked only by documents and records, which are often incomplete, because the court clerk also sits online, and his connection can be interrupted at any time.


Court session

The second problem - in America they say that the courts “remotely” give an unfair advantage to more reputable law firms that have studios with good lighting, interior design and a stable connection. Which can make them look nice on the screen - which means they would pay more attention to their words. “Equalizations” in remote trials are said to not occur. Quite the contrary. Clients able to pay only low-cost private attorneys suffer the most.

The third problem is that there are serious security issues for Zoom. Video conferencing can be accessed. There were no passwords in the default settings for meetings (the company recently fixed this) Zoom said that calls are pass-through encryption, but it turns out that no. As a result, an honest audience may not get access to meetings, but someone else will accidentally connect, and even be available on video.

But despite all these problems, those who advocate for online trials say that they are now very important in preventing the spread of coronavirus. Thousands of people intersect daily in court buildings. Many of them then go to crowded prisons, someone goes to another state. The fact that the quality of the processes will not be perfect is inevitability in such a situation, and the only way out.

In addition, the law enforcement system, often in the United States as a model of retrograde, is now changing rapidly to meet new challenges. In San Francisco, courts allow the public to access Zoom webinars. Meetings are open to everyone in a live stream format, and users can even leave comments during the process. One of the judges says:
I think that public broadcasts have a very positive effect on the opinion and well-being of citizens. They train people in the work of institutions and lead to increased transparency of state organizations.
But not all courts practice public broadcasting. For example, although New York has translated most operations online, they are not broadcasting their meetings yet . There, human rights organizations are now fighting for such a right. Zoe Adele, manager of the Brooklyn Community Bail Fund, which helps pay bail for those who are not able to do this, explains:
We have noticed over the years that our presence in court really means something. This changes people's behavior. Judges put a pledge much lower when they know that they are being watched, and the public may not like their decision.

Side effects


Moving the online justice system had an unexpected effect on the status of the procedure and overall court experience. If you are usually standing in a magnificent building, surrounded by serious people and looking at the judge from the bottom up, now everything has “equalized” to approximately the same level. The judge no longer seems a formidable and powerful person, it is just a pixel on the screen. And the whole process seems to be quite an ordinary occupation - just how to get in touch with a couple of acquaintances on Skype.



Moreover, such a “vulgarization” of the whole procedure affected not only the defendants and spectators, but also lawyers with prosecutors. Dennis Bailey, Florida judge, writes a public lettercalling on them to dress more decently during meetings. His patience snapped after he saw a male lawyer speaking without a T-shirt, and a female prosecutor conducting the case before he got out of bed. The outraged Bailey writes:
And if you put the beach as a background in Zoom, this does not mean that you can appear in a bathing suit. So, please, if you do not mind, let's treat the court hearings as an official and important process, in Zoom or not in Zoom.
Digital hearings also put disadvantaged defendants who do not have a good internet connection or webcam. The New York Times was told about this by Douglas Keith, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice:
This is a problem for all judges, regardless of whether it is a matter of a personal hearing or a remote proceeding. Here you need to be aware of the existence of such a subconscious bias, and at least try to control it, even if you can’t completely get rid of the bias. Even if a person is almost invisible and inaudible, this does not mean that he is not there.
Human rights activists also fear that remote meetings will remain after the coronavirus crisis. Nevertheless, it is convenient for judges and prosecutors, and in general it is very beneficial for the state. There are many pluses. And minus is only one - the probability of a judicial error increases (most likely).

About this in an interview with NYT lawyer Alan Rupi says:
I often work with witnesses. Much is built on trust in people. It is difficult to create it through a webcam. When you evaluate someone, you should be in the same room with him.
At the same time, Rupi agrees that some parts of the civil proceedings can be easily led to Zoom. For example, conferences about the conduct of the case - when lawyers meet with a judge to discuss small organizational details. In the US, lawyers often have to travel across several states for the sake of this, spending several days to appear in the courtroom for only 20 minutes. Now - all this is solved in video calls, and for many such a change greatly facilitated life.
I used to travel so much that it negatively affected my marriage. Now, I’m at home at Zoom all day, and this negatively affects my marriage.
During a pandemic, if the courts cannot be adjourned, there is no better solution than a remote one. But what happens after that is the question. Maybe certain processes (for example, regarding small fines) after the crisis of the coronavirus will continue to go online. And in the courtroom there will be meetings about serious crimes, with witnesses or jury trials, when it is very important to see the face of a person in all details and feel the energy of people around.

More articles:


All Articles