Arraigning defendants by videoconferencing technology, as soon will be the case in Windsor Superior Court, will be cheaper, safer and more efficient, according to officials of the Vermont Court system. They say that the technology has already been implemented successfully in Chittenden and Bennington counties, and many jurisdictions around the country, including New Hampshire. So what’s not to like?
In a word, plenty. To begin with, the fact that video arraignment has become commonplace elsewhere does not demonstrate that it serves the interests of justice. We hold that it does not.
To begin at the beginning, arraignment is not a mere formality, but instead a crucial part of the criminal justice process, as Norwich-based defense attorney George Ostler told staff writer Jordan Cuddemi for her recent story on the subject.
It is generally the defendant’s initial court appearance after arrest, at which a plea is entered and the amount and conditions of bail set. It is the first opportunity for the judge not only to become acquainted with the facts of the case but also to look defendants in the eye, hear their voices, and to assess their credibility, emotional state and physical well-being.
As Ostler argues, the video version of the process “dehumanizes the accused. … I don’t care how big the TV screen is, it’s not the same.” Almost anyone who has used videoconferencing technology in business can attest to the force of that argument. When it comes to assessing an interlocutor, video is hardly a substitute for a face-to-face meeting, where important information can be gleaned from body language, eye contact and timbre of voice.
If the result of that dehumanizing process is that higher bail is set and more defendants remain in custody while awaiting trial, prosecutors gain a significant advantage. They have more leverage to induce defendants to plead guilty to a lesser offense simply to get out of jail.
Moreover, most defendants meet their lawyer for the first time at the courthouse before arraignment, when they have an opportunity to confer privately for a few minutes. But when the defendant is at the jail in Springfield and his or her lawyer is at the courthouse 32 miles away in White River Junction, they will have to confer initially by phone, with all the possibility of miscommunication that that entails. Moreover, the defendant will not be able to receive the attorney’s advice privately as they stand shoulder to shoulder before the judge during the actual arraignment, which also puts the defense at a distinct disadvantage.
Court officials note that video arraignment will be voluntary. Defendants who want to appear in court in person will be transported from jail to the courthouse by sheriff’s deputies, as is now the case. Not stated is whether, if they exercise their right to in-person arraignment, that court appearance will take place on the same day. If not, the idea of spending another night in custody might prove a powerful deterrent to exercising that right if defendants think there is a reasonable possibility that they could be freed on bail at arraignment.
And although it may sound naive, there is another good reason to conduct arraignments with defendants physically present in the courtroom. The setting impresses on them the formality and solemnity of the occasion. When judges, court officers, prosecutors and defense lawyers alike show respect to the accused in person, face to face, they are also fostering respect for the judicial process, the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. And there’s no substitute for that.