Now, Deschutes County courtrooms echo with one statement said over and over: “This is the Deschutes County Circuit Court. Can I have everyone on the line put their phones on mute? You are broadcasting everything in your background into the open courtroom.”
The Oregon judicial system first started to integrate remote technology into circuit courts in 2008 as part of a campaign to transition the state to an electronic-filing system. Deschutes County transitioned to that system in 2015, and around that time Sheriff Shane Nelson made it policy for defendants lodged in the Deschutes County jail to appear using video technology to reduce transportation and administrative costs.
However, appearing remotely in court wasn’t widespread until the COVID-19 pandemic forced the courts to go virtual. For much of the pandemic, judges, attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants and court staff routinely attended court remotely using online video conferencing software, phones and other tools.
Almost four years later, many people are still choosing to show up remotely, and it seems like remote court appearances are here to stay.
Whether that is a good thing, is still being debated by those who work within the justice system.
JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Deschutes County District Attorney Steve Gunnels said remote appearances have added a level of efficiency in the courts that wasn’t there before the pandemic. Fewer defendants fail to appear at their court hearings, and there are fewer barriers for people to contend with. A broken down car might have meant a missed court date before, but technology now offers an alternative.
But for cases involving more serious crimes, Gunnels said there are distinct disadvantages.
“It can be frustrating for us when criminal defendants aren’t present — particularly for plea and sentencing hearings — because it’s my belief that when somebody commits a crime, they need to be face-to-face with the judge and take accountability for it,” Gunnels told The Bulletin.
That is why the Deschutes County District Attorney’s Office specifically requests that the courts order defendants to attend their court hearings in person for more severe or violent offenses. That request isn’t always granted by a judge, but Gunnels said it is his “strong preference to have the person required to appear in court,” especially when there is a person-to-person crime involving a victim.
“It’s very frustrating for victims of crime who show up to court and see that the offender isn’t required to do that,” Gunnels said. “(It’s important) for the victim to see that the offender has to face the judge in person and get that sentence in person as opposed to essentially over the telephone.”
ADDING OPTIONS FOR VICTIMS
But just as there are disadvantages for victims when defendants are allowed to appear remotely, virtual court attendance can provide options for those not required to attend, but who want to. Debbi Wise, a victim advocate with the district attorney’s office, said while it can be important for some victims to face their perpetrators, for many, appearing remotely is an appealing alternative to the courtroom.
“For some people it’s important not to be in the courtroom. They just don’t want to be there. They don’t want to see the person, but they want to participate. For those people, being able to do it (remotely) is something that we didn’t have in the past. It’s beneficial. I have many people who want to do it that way,” Wise said.
Before remote attendance was widely available, Wise explained there were only two options for victims: attend the hearing or miss it entirely. But calling in remotely opens up a lot of options, said Wise. The virtual line allows victims in sensitive cases to appear with no identifying information, and eliminates barriers like distance or finding child care.
With remote attendance, a mother living in Texas can make a victim impact statement arguing for her son’s killer to receive a longer sentence without the trauma of traveling to the courtroom. But if that same mother feels it’s important to show up and look at the judge face to face, she still has that right.
The point is, Wise said, now victims have a choice.
RIGHTS ARE COMPLICATED
With new technology, though, come new pitfalls. An attempted murder case in Deschutes County presented one unexpected way remote court appearances could impact justice.
Earlier this month, Timothy John Boyd of Bend was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after allegedly hitting his roommate in the head with a bat. Boyd wanted to exercise his statutory right to testify in front of a grand jury before his indictment was issued, but he specifically wanted to do so in person and not remotely from the Deschutes County jail.
Last week, Boyd’s lawyer argued in front of a Deschutes County Circuit judge that Boyd could not adequately argue he acted in self-defense if the grand jurors could not accurately assess his demeanor and sincerity.
“In an in-person hearing — this is why we have them at trial — you can see a person,” argued Boyd’s lawyer, Evander McIver, in front of Judge Alycia Herriott. “(The court) can determine his credibility much better than in a recording with glitches, shadows and some dark background. It is just absolutely not the same.”
Herriott ultimately granted Boyd’s request, but not before she held a hearing on the subject. The hearing was scheduled to be 15 minutes, but it turned into an hour-long debate. Boyd’s request was unusual for several reasons, but his case turned up broader legal questions about whether defendants can effectively argue their cases remotely.
“It’s a balance,” Gunnels said. “This is the new status quo and the new normal. There may be adjustments to it, but I believe we will have more remote appearances going forward.”
©2024 The Bulletin, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
