Virtual Justice? A National Study Analyzing the Transition to Remote Criminal Court
Stanford Criminal Justice Center | 195
522
Milwaukee Interview 4 (Defense Attorney 3).
523 For the purposes of this section, virtual communications encompass everything from negotiations between
parties to attorney-client conversations to full-blown court hearings.
524 The difficulty was caused in part because of the intangible nature of the concepts under discussion and in part
because they overlapped substantially with witness credibility, attorney-client communication, and (in North
Dakota) seriousness and formality codes.
525
The following analysis denotes instances in which one jurisdiction dominates a given sub-theme.
526 It also arose, though more subtly, in two interviews with court personnel. See ND Interviews 1 (Court Personnel
1), 4 (Court Personnel 4). Court personnel are excluded from the table for the reasons mentioned in Chapter 7:
Access to Technology. See note XX, supra.
527 See note XX, Chapter 7: Access to Technology, supra.
528 See Chapter 4: Qualitative Analysis – Methods and Data.
529
Miami Interview 9 (Judge 2); Milwaukee Interview 2 (Defense Attorney 1).
530 See, e.g., Miami Interview 10 (Judge 3); ND Interview 12 (Judge 2).
531
Miami Interview 9 (Judge 2). See also id. (“It was really an eye opener to be able to go into people’s homes and
see them with their children. Um, it really, really humanized them, you know, because you see them sitting on
a couch in their homes, their children are sitting around them, you know? You see the apartment. I thought it
was tremendously useful for the entire team to see that.”). Another judge, in Milwaukee, noted that defendants
were more talkative virtually, though he did not explicitly connect that to humanization. See Milwaukee Interview
10 (Judge 1) (“I think the defendants are actually a little chattier on Zoom. You know, you give them a chance
to allocute. A lot of times in court, . . . . a number of people just say no, I don’t have anything to say. I think
on Zoom the percentage of people that actually have something to say, and when they do say it say more, has
actually, has gone up under Zoom.”).
532 Milwaukee Interview 2 (Defense Attorney 1). For fuller context, the attorney continues: “But this was a practice
that was widespread in Milwaukee. . . . You know, like bringing people into, and then paraded in hallways, in
front of their families, and in the public, it’s just so incredibly dehumanizing. And it’s just not, and barbaric
too. . . . It’s just, it’s just inhuman. And it’s in my opinion, it’s not right, and it violates everything that I grew up.
About the respect and the dignity of human beings. . . . So I, that is, to the one thing that has changed, obviously,
because they have no choice. But it’s the dehumanizing aspect of how people were treated Milwaukee County,
before COVID-19, is just unconscionable.”
533
Miami Interview 10 (Judge 3).
534 ND Interview 12 (Judge 2).
535 At another point in the interview, Milwaukee Interview 2 (Defense Attorney 1) noted, “I think it’s more difficult
for a judge to be able to see, or sense, what’s going on with someone if they are, you know, appearing remotely.”
Similarly, Miami Interview 9 (Judge 2) noted that interaction with “new defendants” was “more challenging”
because “I didn’t have a feel for them to begin with.” Miami Interview 10 (Judge 3) talked about “bodies and
humans and interaction.” And ND Interview 12 (Judge 2) sometimes described a preference for being able to
look litigants in the eye in person.
536
See, e.g., Miami Interview 10 (Judge 3) (“I do also look forward to bodies and humans and interaction.”).
537
See, e.g., ND Interview 19 (Prosecutor 4) (“I’m sorry, there’s a, there’s a dynamic to this [trial] process of being in
person and, and addressing [accusations] in the flesh”).
538 However, the majority of respondents using such language were from North Dakota.
539 ND Interview 20 (Prosecutor 5) (discussing hearings over Zoom).
540 ND Interview 19 (Prosecutor 4). See also id. (“Well, I suppose it’s about people. It’s about bringing somebody in,
letting them face their accusers, whatever that is, in person.”).
541
ND Interview 17 (Prosecutor 2) (discussing parts of in-person sentencing that are not the same virtually).
542 ND Interview 19 (Prosecutor 4) (discussing reasons for his frustration with virtual court). See also ND Interview 13
(Judge 3) (noting the personal aspect of the judge’s job: “You deal with people.”).
543 Milwaukee Interview 15 (Judge 6) (discussing courtroom interactions).
544 ND Interview 12 (Judge 2) (discussing sentencing).
545 ND Interview 20 (Prosecutor 5) (explaining the differences between Zoom and in-person hearings).
546 ND Interview 11 (Judge 1) (comparing in-person and remote hearings).
547 ND Interview 12 (Judge 2) (explaining why she wants to control when hearings are virtual or in-person).
548 Milwaukee Interview 17 (Prosecutor 2) (discussing informal plea bargaining before a hearing). See also id. (“You
do lose that face-to-face contact doing it this way.”) (discussing breakout-room plea bargaining).
549 Miami Interview 12 (Prosecutor 1) (discussing his comfort with technology).
550 Milwaukee Interview 19 (Prosecutor 4) (discussing technological issues in virtual court).
551 ND Interview 14 (Judge 4) (discussing the importance of in-person trials).
552 Milwaukee Interview 4 (Defense Attorney 3) (discussing in-person court). See also id. (“And we got better plea
deals, doing things face to face. I think now, um, everything’s, you know, really being done over email, and it’s
easier for them to deny us something that we’re asking for via email than it was face to face.”)
Click on hyperlinks to visit websites and articles.