Videoconferencing in Criminal Proceedings: Legal and Empirical Issues and Directions for Research

Abstract

State and federal courts are increasingly using videoconferencing to hold proceedings in criminal cases, including first appearances and arraignments. However, little systematic information is available about the extent of its use, the proceedings for which it is used, how it is implemented, and, most importantly, whether videoconferencing affects the behavior or perceptions of participants in a way that violates a defendant's fundamental rights. In this article we review the legal and empirical issues raised by the use of videoconferencing in criminal cases and describe empirical research that could and, we argue, should, inform policy decisions concerning its use.

Remembering remotely: would video-mediation impair witnesses' memory reports?

“…However, social psychological research shows that face-to-face interaction is typically beneficial to rapport-building (Drolet & Morris, 2000); other research from the videoconferencing literature suggests that rapport-building is often less successful in VMC than in faceto-face interactions, with mutual liking harder to establish (Fullwood, 2007;Fullwood & Finn, 2010;Straus, Miles, & Levesque, 2001). Many legal professionals report similar concerns about the ability of defendants and attorneys to develop effective relationships remotely (Johnson & Wiggins, 2006;Poulin, 2004).…”

“…The justice system in general is already quite literate with video-mediated communication (VMC). Videotestimony by witnesses, victims and suspects is increasingly frequent in courtrooms in several countries (Johnson & Wiggins, 2006); in Australia for example, witnesses who live in remote rural areas are sometimes enabled to communicate with the court via video-link, thereby replacing the need to travel extremely long distances (Wallace, 2008). In various parts of the world, legal procedures including bail hearings and immigration appeals are also sometimes conducted in this way (Diamond, Bowman, Wong, & Patton, 2010;Haas, 2006).…”

Future-Proofing Justice: Building a Research Agenda to Address the Effects of Technological Change on the Protection of Constitutional Rights

“…Despite some findings that remote testimony of character witnesses in criminal cases did not affect case outcomes (Lederer, 2009), other studies suggest that it may be difficult for a judge or jury to determine a witness's demeanor when testimony is provided through videoconference (Babcock and Johansen, 2011;Bailenson et al, 2011), which can be exacerbated by technical issues, such as an audio delay (Abraham et al, 2008). Other remote testimony simulations have demonstrated that in-person testimony was rated as more believable and honest by mock jurors (Johnson and Wiggins, 2006) and that emotion level was more difficult to gauge for witnesses appearing via remote videoconference (Havener, 2014). While videoconferencing for defendant appearances and witness testimony is already happening in courtrooms throughout the country, innovators are developing technologies that push further into virtual space, and these might be used in courtrooms in the future.…”

“…For these types of hearings, remote appearances may protect the rights of the defendants by affording swifter access to justice than would be possible if the hearing were conducted in person. However, questions remain about whether appearances and testimony through videoconferencing systems impede or support a defendant's rights to confront witnesses, to effective assistance of counsel, and to an unbiased and fair tribunal, and whether such appearances have the same effects as in-person appearances (see, for example, Johnson and Wiggins, 2006).…”

“…Over the decades, the questions have focused on the use of video and other photographic technologies in court (Williams et al, 1975), videoconferencing for appearance of detained defendants or remote witness testimony (also know as video presence or virtual presence) (Johnson and Wiggins, 2006), and simulations of crimes or crime scenes (Dunn, Salovey, and Feigenson, 2006). New visual technology has the potential to both enhance and impede protection of a defendant's due process rights; therefore, judges and attorneys must consider and balance those implications with the emerging expectations of the public for technology to facilitate efficient case processing and the presentation of complete and compelling information at trial.…”