CT Cover F-M 2015 v2_CT Cover 11/04 3/3/15 1:08 PM Page 1
February/March 2015
Taming Workflow & Paperwork
Vol. 13 No. 1
Risk Assessment Instruments
Vetted Entertainment CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED
Courts Today 69 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755
For AssEmbly rooms
CT Cover F-M 2015 v2_CT Cover 11/04 3/3/15 1:08 PM Page 2
f-m 2015 p03 toC ne
W Design_Ct 2/05 p004 toC 3/3/15 9:34 Pm Page 3
with alternative & diversion programs
Publisher & Executive Editor Thomas S. Kapinos Assistant Publisher Jennifer Kapinos
F E B R U A R Y / M A R C H 2 015
Editor Donna Rogers
VOLU M E 13 N U M B E R 1
Contributing Editors Michael Grohs, Bill Schiffner G.F. Guercio, Kelly Mason
F EATU R E S
Art Director Jamie Stroud
8 APPA & NACM Shows Product Reviews
18 Taming Court Workflow Processes & Paperwork
Marketing Representatives Bonnie Dodson (828) 479-7472 Art Sylvie (480) 816-3448 Peggy Virgadamo (718) 456-7329
22 Eye on the Future:
Newest A/V in the Courtroom
27 Assembly Room Movies:
Vetted & Versatile Entertainment
30 Risk Assessment Tools in Practice DE PARTM E NTS
4 Courts in the Media 34 Ad Index 22
Cover image Courtesy of Warner Bros.
with alternative & diversion programs
is published bi-monthly by: Criminal Justice Media, Inc PO Box 213 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310.374.2700 Send address changes to: COURTS TODAY 69 Lyme Road Hanover, NH 03755 or fax (603) 643-6551 To receive a FREE subscription to COURTS TODAY submit, on court letterhead, your request with qualifying title; date, sign and mail to COURTS TODAY 69 Lyme Road Hanover, NH 03755 or you may fax your subscription request to (603) 643-6551 Subscriptions: Annual subscriptions for non-qualified personnel, United States only, is $60.00. Single copy or back issues-$10.00 All Canada and Foreign subscriptions are $90.00 per year. Printed in the United States of America, Copyright Š 2015 Criminal Justice Media, Inc.
F-M 15 p04-06 Mini_CT 2/05 p006-13 NEWS 3/4/15 1:49 PM Page 4
CO U RT S I N T H E M E D I A MACARTHUR FUND PLEDGES $75 MILLION TO REDUCE LOCAL JAIL POPULATIONS The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation announced that it will dedicate $75-million over five years to help reduce the pressure on the nation’s overstuffed jails, reported the February 11 edition of The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Some of the money will go to a set of competitive grants for local jurisdictions to come up with promising ways to keep jail populations down, says the article by Alex Daniels. Applications for the grants are due on March 31. In May, 20 jurisdictions will be awarded $150,000 each to develop their ideas. Next year, 10 of those grantees will be awarded up to $2 million each to put their plans into action. JAIL OPERATING COSTS: $22.2 BILLION While the federal prison population has been declining recently, evidence suggests that local jails—where trends are harder to measure because of high inmate turnover— are more crowded than ever. From 1982 to 2011, the cumulative expenditures for
building and running jails increased 235 percent, the foundation said, citing Department of Justice figures. The annual tab for the cities and counties to run the facilities is $22.2 billion. Laurie Garduque, MacArthur’s director for justice reform, says that during the past 20 years the average stay for a jail inmate has grown from 14 days to more than three weeks. The longer stays jeopardize detainees’ employment and interrupt their education. The foundation will look for ways to encourage local law enforcement to issue summons more often than making arrests, expedite pretrial reviews, and develop standardized assessments of an inmate’s risk of flight or further crime if he or she is released. About 75 percent of inmates in community jails are nonviolent offenders or pretrial detainees accused of nonviolent crimes, according to the foundation. The February announcement marks a shift in priorities in the foundation’s criminal-justice programs. During the past two decades, MacArthur has spent or
February/March 2015 4
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p04-06 Mini_CT 2/05 p006-13 NEWS 3/4/15 1:49 PM Page 5
F-M 15 p04-06 Mini_CT 2/05 p006-13 NEWS 3/4/15 1:49 PM Page 6
CO U RT S I N T H E M E D I A Center for Court Innovation, the Justice Management Institute, Justice System Partners, and the Vera Institute of Justice—to provide guidance to the grant winners.
One study showed that using pretrial assessments for their cases as an alternative to jail, juvenile misdemeanor offenders were 20 percent less likely to re-offend.
pledged about $165 million to improve the treatment of juveniles in the nation’s court and prison system. Much of the juvenile-justice work involved getting localities to make changes in how they process juveniles, particularly minorities and low-income offenders, and promote successes so they
can be used nationally, says The Chronicle. "We’re ramping down that work as we’re ramping up our work in jails," Garduque says. In addition to the competitive grants, the foundation will support research into alternatives to jail and enlist four organizations—the
ONE OF FOUR JUSTICE PARTNERS The Center for Court Innovation is highlighted in the story Risk Assessment Tools in Practice (page 30). Founded two decades ago as a public/private partnership between the New York State Unified Court System and the Fund for the City of New York, it does research and demonstration projects in the New York City area. Projects include the Brooklyn Justice Initiatives and the Red Hook Community Justice Center also in Brooklyn. Both of the projects have focused on pretrial assessments that get low-risk offenders, including juveniles, out of jail and into community treatment. In 2013 an independent evaluation of the Red Hook project by the National Center for State Courts found the adult misdemeanor defendants handled at the Justice Center were 10 percent less likely to commit new crimes than offenders who were processed in a traditional courthouse; juvenile misdemeanor defendants were 20 percent less likely to re-offend. The report also concluded that total resource savings in 2008 for the Red Hook misdemeanor program were nearly $7 million. The MacArthur Foundation notes that data local jurisdictions collect about crime suspects from the time of an arrest and through the court process varies by locality and is hard to use to shape policy. Garduque hopes the involvement of the broader group of criminaljustice experts will help make sense of the numbers. "It will be a challenge," she says, "but we’re putting in place an infrastructure to support that effort."
February/March 2015 6
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p04-06 Mini_CT 2/05 p006-13 NEWS 3/4/15 1:49 PM Page 7
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:13 PM Page 8
B Y B I L L S C H I F F N E R , C O N T R I B U T I N G E D I T OR
New Products, Technologies Front and Center at Probation and Parole Conference
AS WE ROLL INTO 2015, THE TRADE SHOW/CONFERENCE SCHEDULE BEGINS TO HEAT UP FOR PROBATION AND PAROLE PROFESSIONALS.
Resource Expo Stars at APPA Conference
by our institute participants.” Here is a sampling of the hot products that were creating a buzz:
Leading off the 2015 list of justice trade show/conferences was January’s American Probation and Parole Association’s (APPA) 2015 Winter Training Institute in Tampa. The event featured a host of educational workshops, intensive training programs, special sessions and the resource expo designed specifically for community corrections. The highlight of the conference was reported to be the resource expo, which featured an exhibit hall stocked with the latest products and services for probation and parole professionals. “APPA tries to pay special attention to the needs and feedback of our exhibitors,” commented APPA executive director, Carl Wicklund. “As a result, our resource expo hours and events ensured maximum attendance
CUP TESTING
American Bio Medica Corp. offers new RTC II, designed for the criminal justice market. This is an accurate, cost effective and easy to use all-inclusive cup test that will detect up to 14 of the most commonly abused drugs. www.abmc.com, 1.800.227.1243
WEB-BASED SOFTWARE
Northpointe Suite is an integrated web-based assessment, case planning and case management system for criminal justice practitioners. Modules include COMPAS Core Risk/Needs which takes a “retrospective” look at risk and
needs factors for placing and supervising the offender in the community, COMPAS Reentry for the population who has been incarcerated for more than 18 months, COMPAS Women to refine and guide treatment planning for women offenders, and
February/March 2015 8
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 10:53 AM Page 9
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:13 PM Page 10
COMPAS Youth for delinquent youth ages 12 to 17. http://www.northpointeinc.com, 1.888.221.4615
DRUG TESTING
Corrisoft and ABK Remote Drug Testing Inc., an electronic remote monitoring and drug-testing specialist, have partnered to provide a mobile solution for remote testing of drug and alcohol usage. Corrisoft’s AIR (Alternative to Incarceration via Rehabilitation) platform combines a smartphone providing direct communication between offenders,
PROBATION MONITORING TOOL
Adventfs.com’s Diversion Manager is a solution for probation professionals to assist in managing, educating and monitoring offenders. It offers a series of online education programs to provide graduated sanctions or divert qualified offenders into a positive prevention experience. The software also gives probation officers the ability to monitor the progress of the offenders and run activity reports. www.adventfs.com, 1.866.494.8556
GIS MAPPING SOFTWARE
Marquis Software’s OMIS Community Supervision solution offers real-time GIS mapping capabilities wrapped into their case management and inmate management tools. A recent GIS project in the
supervising agency personnel, and Corrisoft’s re-entry specialists. ABK uses its drug testing application called eRam which features dedicated computer software that connects to a client’s camera in order to assess and monitor its subjects remotely through eye analysis and an oral drug screen. www.corrisoft.com, 1.859.271.1190
aging existing information to produce real time GIS mapping, layers and analysis that not only tracks community supervised offenders for the ACC and inmate data in the ADC but also provides analysis tools. www.marquisware.com, 1.850.877.8864
TAILORED SOLUTIONS
For more than two decades, The Change Companies has collaborated with medical and treatment teams, alcohol and other drug educators, correction agencies and healthcare companies to create tailored materials and programs to support behavioral change for special populations. www.changecompanies.net, 1. 888.889.8866
CHECK-IN SOFTWARE
ASIware showcased their new mobile, supervised check-in application, PROOFF. This software will enable probation, parole and other supervisory organizations to provide better quality oversight, more efficiently. PROOFF was built with a
Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and the Arkansas Community Correction (ACC) using this software is changing that paradigm by lever-
Adventfs.com’s Diversion Manager
February/March 2015 10
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:13 PM Page 11
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:13 PM Page 12
focus on the following objectives: Provide organizations with a tool to manage caseloads more efficiently, enable organizations to create a more flexible program structure to obtain more desirable program outcomes and create a product that is affordable and easy to use for both the supervisee and supervisor. www.asi-ware.com, 1.937.845.1076
FLEXIBLE REMOTE BREATH TEST
SCRAM Remote Breath is a flexible option in breath testing. It is the first handheld, wireless, portable breath alcohol tester that includes government-grade facial recognition, high-resolution photos, BrAC
NACM Conference: Focused on the Future Next up in the 2105 judicial show lineup, is The National Association of Court Management (NACM) Conference, which was held February 8-10 in Lost Pines (Austin), Texas. This years’ gathering focused on how the world of court administration has been impacted by case processing and technological advancements, workforce demographics, societal expectations, and leadership. Many educational sessions will focus particular attention on the recently revised NACM Core Competencies (The Core). Two outstanding keynote speakers kicked off the conference. Judge John Cleland, senior judge on the McKean County Court of Common Pleas, spoke on Public Trust and Confidence. Judge Cleland became a household name in 2011 when he was assigned to the trial of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky. Attendees also were well informed by a talk given by Rebecca Love Kourlis, former justice of the Colorado Supreme Court and executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. In addition to some powerful learning opportunities, attendees enjoyed networking events and a full exhibit show with a number of new product introductions:
JURY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
results, and a GPS location with every test. Automated facial matching reduces manual photo review by 90%-95%, while random, scheduled, and on-demanding testing provides more flexibility to monitor clients. www.alcoholmonitoring.com, 1.800.557.0861
JURY+ Web Generation (WebGen) is a complete jury management system that provides the full functionality of the JURY+ Next Generation system in a browserbased environment. WebGen is
PAYMENT OPTIONS
JPay features a wide variety of payment channels for offenders needing to meet their parole and probation obligations. The company can also provide automated IVR (interactive voice response) phone reminders with an immediate payment option, which helps agencies boost their collection rates. www.jpay.com, 1.800.574.5729
built using the latest web technology and has been developed using the same business rule processing as its predecessor, which has been refined over two decades and is currently installed in 400+ courts across North America and internationally. www.jurysystems.com, 1.800.222.6974
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS
Thomson Reuters is committed to provide customers with unrivaled
solutions that integrate content, expertise and technologies, reports the company. C-Track CMS delivers just that, offering courts customiz-
able management solutions configured to how a court functions. At NACM, attendees spoke with their experts about C-Track CMS, including new features and functions leading to the next generation of adaptable case management systems. www.thomsonreuters.com, 1.877.923.7800
E-COURT SYSTEM
TurboCourt is an award-winning eGovernment technology for selfrepresented litigants, offering appellate, civil, family, and domestic vio-
February/March 2015 12
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:13 PM Page 13
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:13 PM Page 14
lence case types nationw i d e . TurboCourt’s 3-step guided interview process includes interactive smart forms, e-filing, e-serve, e-payment, & advanced workflows that seamlessly integrate with more case management systems than any other e-filing product. The system’s private-cloud platform is simple-touse, easy-to-administer and fits all litigants, all case types and all courts. www.TurboCourt.com, 1.877.260.1792
NAVIGATION SYSTEM
The CourtSight Suite is an electronic courthouse navigation system for your courthouse. DocketCall provides real-time docket and key facility information to patrons, alle-
completing court forms and filing cases online. Courts can easily create Web-based interviews for their
viating wayfinding confusion and allowing patrons to successfully navigate through your facility. The system uses commercial LCDs and kiosks to electronically guide patrons to their destination. www.infax.com, 1.770.209.9925
SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS E-FILE
With Odyssey Guide & File, a suite of tools developed to provide access to justice for all constituents, self-represented litigants can now be guided through the process of
court by leveraging the library of existing interviews from other jurisdictions and the Odyssey Guide & File authoring tool. www.tylertechnologies.com, 1.800.431.5776
JURY MANAGEMENT
Courthouse Technologies has 50 years of combined experience developing solutions for the jury management process. This experience has taught them that superior jury management systems are not crafted just by computer programmers, but by dedicated technology professionals who are specialists in the jury man-
February/March 2015 14
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:14 PM Page 15
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:14 PM Page 16
agement field. Their team of developers has built more jury management systems than any other vendor anywhere, says the firm. www.courthouse-technologies.com, 1.877.685.2199
COURT CASE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
Justice Systems, Inc.’s FullCourt Enterprise is a complete, fully integrated court case management software system that runs in an onpremises or hosted/cloud environment and can exchange data with
CourtView’s JWorks CMS puts the power of intelligent, dynamic processing where it belongs—with the court. And now, JWorks allows users to personalize virtually every page so that they get exactly the information they need, when and how they need it—whether at their desk or on the go. www.courtview.com, 1.800.406.4333
PAPERLESS CASE MANAGEMENT any external system. FullCourt Enterprise provides a powerful backend infrastructure, an innovative browser-based user interface, and a comprehensive collection of modular tools and applications. FullCourt Enterprise’s customizable, tablebased architecture allows the system to be widely configured to meet the specific requirements of the Court. www.justicesystems.com, 1.505.883.3987
CASE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
From rules-driven caseflow to role-driven dashboards and queues,
Benchmark is an innovative, paperless court case management system, says its developer Pioneer Technology
Group. With Benchmark, a court can quickly eliminate the problems of managing multiple systems and eliminate the time and labor invested in post-court processing of paper files. The court can maximize efficiency with custom configuration, paperless incourt and processing, and full featured online access for the judiciary and all stakeholders. www.ptghome.com, 1.800.280.5281
JURY SELECTION SOFTWARE
Xerox’s AgileJury solution (version 4.0) allows courts to automate and streamline the entire jury management process, including the use of mobile platforms. Courts can model and deliver random juror selection and selected pool size, easily update summons information and communicate with citizens through the Internet. The solution uses industry standard algorithms to ensure equal probability of all possible combinations to ensure jury selection is indiscriminate. In addition, AgileJury can be interfaced with the court’s existing information technology to facilitate a full integration into the justice system. www.xerox.com/justice, 1.877.414.2676
February/March 2015 16
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:14 PM Page 17
F-M 15 18-22 workflow_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:53 AM Page 18
BY G.F. GUERCIO, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
Software systems take
the snarl of complex scheduling, processes and paperwork, and also organize, automate, and streamline the glut, increasing functionality, accessibility, and maximizing resources to best manage operations. Here, we have compiled a list of best software to help you make order in the court a reality. The McGirr Court Management System manages with real-time, 360-degree views to empower caseflow managers and optimize outcomes, relates Jeff Nadler, the company’s vice president of Sales. Built on leading-edge technology, it provides scalability from tens of users up to thousands of users and millions of cases. The Justice Portal enables parties’ access to a case and
their legal representatives to do business with the court through responsive and intuitive online services from any device, any time. Services can expand with CourtView Justice Solutions, which recently announced its new integrated document management system (iDMS), according to Sue Humphreys, director of Industry Solutions. It can be seamlessly coupled with its suite of case management systems for courts, attorneys, and supervision. “ShowCase iDMS supports on-demand or high-speed batch scanning, configurable keyword indexing and full text OCR, along with securable editing tools for sizing, rotation, annotation, redaction, note taking, etc.,” she says. “Media is quickly related to names, cases, and specific activity
and easily scanned, uploaded, organized, and retrieved from within the CMS.” And the iDMS Electronic File Cabinet is accessible from any desktop or mobile device, depending on CMS configuration. “C-Track CMS offers a flexible and configurable approach to document management while solving common problems that arise with scanner device incompatibilities,” notes Manoj Jain, Thomson Reuters, vice president, Court Management Solutions. C-Track supports the scanning of court documents individually or in bulk using barcodes and automatically links scanned files with the proper case docket entry. Document recognition service includes error logging and notification of any issues during the scanning process. Using the Rules
February/March 2015 18
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 18-22 workflow_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:53 AM Page 19
Engine, clients can configure custom workflows to automatically route electronic files based on predefined conditions to individual users, groups, or external parties for review, approval, notice, or action. Jain adds, “C-Track can also integrate with third-party DMS and scanning solutions.” Court Clerk uses fingerprint scanners for both authentication and electronic signing of forms by judges, clerks, attorneys, and officers. Fingerprint scanners, along with signature pads and PDF generation of forms and reports, allow a court to become virtually paperless, according to Paul Sellers, operations administrator, Syscon, Inc. The system provides scanning, indexing, and viewing of any document associated with a case. Flexible interfaces allow transfer of information with law enforcement, integrated online payments, telephone reminders, and adjudication information to state agencies to keep all agencies up to date while improving accuracy, he says. ECourt is a web-based case management system that leverages a key advantage: it was architected from the ground up as a highly configurable business processing engine that fulfills the complex requirements of processing all case types across multiple courts and justice partners, says Jacoba Poppelton, marketing manager, Journal Technologies. (The company is the merger of three long standing firms—New Dawn Technologies, Sustain Technologies, and ISD Corp.) “Users only need a web browser on their desktops, thus cutting administrative and hardware needs to an absolute minimum.” She adds Journal Technologies has developed case management software solutions for courts of all jurisdictions, prosecutors, public defenders, probation and other government entities. "Long a leader in providing guided interview based e-filing, the TurboCourt suite has been expanded to provide case types and products that serve both filers and court
operations,” says Scott Crampton, project manager. New products and deployments include Tax Court and Process Serve e-filing in Arizona, Small Claims filings in New Hampshire, uncontested divorce cases in Texas and statewide deployment of Family Abuse Prevention Act cases in Oregon, he notes. Tybera—along with the North Carolina Administrative Offices of the Courts—developed a domestic violence efiling wizard that significantly reduces the time it takes to file a complaint, generate a protective order and have it approved and served, according to Norm Anderson, vice president, Sales and Marketing, who notes that there was a lot of interest “in this presentation at eCourts in Las Vegas.” Trained service providers help complete an online form and e-notification is sent to interested parties (schools, day care, etc.). The complaint and protective order are generated automatically for review and implementation, and a text message of the status is sent to the victim and law enforcement. Tyler Technologies’ Incode Court Online meets needs as a customizable, user-friendly system allowing defendants to pay municipal court fines online at any time, says Michael Kleiman, director of marketing for Tyler’s Court and Justice Division. Full and partial payments are accepted, and payment plans can be established. Deferred adjudication, extensions or state-specific online driver safety courses can also be requested by defendants through the web portal. Kleiman concludes, “Features of the system can be turned on or off at any time depending on court size and need, and it is fully integrated into the Incode municipal court solution to facilitate data export and eliminate a thirdparty system.” Eliminating paper and multiple processes, streamlining payments and improving filing are all part of the continued software development for courts that helps tame the hassles. February/March 2015x
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
19
F-M 15 18-22 workflow_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:53 AM Page 20
ContaCt
featureS
ProduCt
CaSe ManageMent SourCeS McGirr Court Management System
C•Track CMS
ShowCase iDMS
eCourt
• Document and records management • Supports any configuration for cases, entities, parties, roles, jurisdictions, divisions • Customer configurable modules for events, business rules, workflows, court orders • Rostering and resource management • Automatic hearing scheduling • eFiling • Justice portal • Scan documents to case • Payments processing
• Document management • Scanning • Flexible and configurable • Supports scanning of court documents individually and in bulk • Barcode scanning • Automatic document linking with docket entry • Error logging and notification • Automatic routing accounting predefined conditions
• Tag and organize documents, email, pictures, video, audio, other artifacts • Automatically ingest and index documents generated by the CMS • Rule-driven routing and sharing across cases, participants, and users • Electronic file and package stamping (date, time, etc.) • Capture, secure, and insert signatures • Automatic and manual redaction
Manoj Jain, Vice President Thomson Reuters Court Management Solutions mjain@thomsonreuters.com
CourtView Justice Solutions Gary Egner, Director of Business Development info@courtview.com 800.406.4333 www.courtview.com
• Configurability including workflows, triggers to initiate items in a workflow, time standards, and ad hoc workflow redirection • Calendaring: Time slots allow determining in advance which events heard by judge or panel, time/place and notices automatically generated to printer/email • Reporting • Document management: Secure environment for documents, scanning, indexing and storage • eCourt Public: Public facing interface to give public, lawyers and litigants functionality to pay traffic fines/fees, file new cases or documents on existing cases, and make electronic payments • Notes, Checklists and Minutes: Staff can attach virtual ‘post-it notes’ to cases
McGirr Information Technology Pty. Ltd. www.mcgirrtech.com Jeff Nadler, VP of Sales jeff.nadler@mcgirrtech.com 480.857.6341
sales@newdawn.com www.newdawn.com (coming soon: journaltechnologies.com)
February/March 2015 20
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 18-22 workflow_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:53 AM Page 21
ContaCt
featureS
ProduCt
CaSe ManageMent SourCeS TurboCourt
Court Clerk
Incode
Domestic Violence eFiling
• Diverse court e-filing product suite: appellate court, trial court attorney and specialized self-represented e-filing systems in civil, small claims, family, tax court, child support and domestic violence case types
• Configured to individual court operations • Case administration and tracking • Docket maintenance and printing for initial appearance, arraignment, trial, review, and hearing • Complete bank account(s) maintenance, check writing and printing, and bank reconciliation functions • Maintenance of docket entries, fees, judges, officers, attorneys, etc. • Scanning of documents associated with docket entries for paperless court • Auto-assignment or manual entry of case numbers • Management of reports and integrated custom report generation
• Leading-edge functionality • Municipal court software robust and easy-to-use • Feature-rich applications streamline case management to more efficiently serve constituents no matter size or scope of office • Cloud based solutions deploy, configure, maintain and update the software applications and related data
• Efiling wizard reduces time to file complaint, generate protective order, approve and serve • Email and cell numbers are captured for e-notification to interested parties • Complaint automatically generated and efiled to the court clerk office queue for review and approval • Form data automatically generates an exparte protective order and is routed to the judges queue to be reviewed and electronically signed • Local law enforcement can access and download the order, prior violations and continuances
Scott Crampton, Project Manager 503.508.1431 TurboCourt.com customers@turbocourt.com 877.260.1792
Syscon, Inc. 1.205.758.2000 1.800.797.2661 info@syscononline.com www.syscononline.com
Tyler Technology Incodesales@tylertech.com
Tybera Norm Anderson Vice President, Sales & Marketing 801-226-2746 x106 nanderson@tybera.com
February/March 2015x WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
21
f-m 15 p22-26 aV_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:54 am Page 22
all images courtesy of
WolfVision
B Y M I C H A E L G R O H S , C O N T R I B U T I N G E D I TOR
Eye on the Future There was a time,
says Fredric Lederer, director of the Center for Legal & Court Technology (CLCT), that the chance of having video evidence was small. Even one of the most famous events in U.S. history, the assassination of President Kennedy, which occurred in a public arena in broad daylight, was captured on only a few feet of film by a handful of people. The most complete footage, shot by Abraham Zapruder, was a silent, color film that lasted for 26.6 seconds that went on to become perhaps the most studied piece of film in history. It is the film most people associate with visual evidence of the crime. Now, says Lederer, video evidence is everywhere and will con-
tinue to proliferate. A huge amount of personal video recording takes place. There are cameras everywhere. Most people carry one in their pocket. We are in an age of social media. People commit a crime and feel compelled to boast about it on Facebook. Google Glass is expected to play a factor in courtroom presentation. More and more police officers are going to be wearing body cameras. Next it will be drones. “Courts will be flooded with video,” he forecasts. At present, Audio/Video is in a transitional stage. December 31, 2013 saw the “analog sunset,” which means that all newly purchased technologies connect only by HDMI, DVI, display port or other future digital connections. Malcolm Macallum, Chief Technology Officer
at VIQ Solutions Inc., also points out “the use of AV capture is exploding in terms of evidence but is only slowly being adopted in the AV capture of court proceedings.” He furthers that the state of AV technology has drastically improved over the past two or three years and networks are finally able to capture HD video at a “decent” rate across LANs. This technology did not even exist a few years ago, but “currently the growth in AV evidence is exploding while the courts are still catching up. That technological change is happening but requires massive upgrades in LANs, workstations, and operating systems. Even the change from PCs to laptop or tablets is a large undertaking for most jurisdictions.” The state of the AV technology
February/March 2015 22
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
f-m 15 p22-26 aV_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:54 am Page 23
HOW VISUALS ARE GAINING GROUND IN THE COURTROOM.
Graphics posted on big screen displays during a mock trial at the Center for Legal & Court Technology.
has greatly improved over the last few years, agrees John T. Wright, SVP, sales and business development, PESA, a company that partners with VIQ. He details a way that HD video can be moved at an acceptable rate across LANs. “VIQ, for instance, offers a robust remote AV monitor and capture feature that means that evidence can be easily attached, captured and securely shared.” The tight integration with the PESA XSTREAM family of products permits the use of legacy cameras leading to a lower cost, simpler install with a significant upgrade in capability, Wright notes. If that evidence is required to be released publicly or privately, it can now be done with a secure web portal. This
is all new technology, he stresses. CLCT, also known as The McGlothlin Courtroom, is “the world’s most technologically advanced trial and appellate courtroom and classroom.” Says Lederer, there have been parallel advancements in technology and its use of AV evidence. For civil cases it might be used as a “day in the life” scenario to show what someone’s life is like after an accident or events such as a football player being injured in a game. Even the term AV itself is evolving to now include tablets and phones. In fact, this spring CLCT, located at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Va., is planning an experimental trial to examine how much courts can do using only
tablets and film rather than higher tech equipment.
SKY’S THE LIMIT
So how are courts utilizing this technology? The answer is: for practically everything. Currently many are using technology such as TeleCourt for arraignments in which an inmate can appear in court from another town or state. AV is used to present evidence and testimony, video, animations, and imaged documents. It is used to record and store trial records. Macallum says, “Courts vary greatly in their use of technology. Some focus on streamlining their workflow processes and put up public portals that provide court information and in some cases allow for electronic forms filing.” He February/March 2015x
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
23
f-m 15 p22-26 aV_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:54 am Page 24
A WolfVision visualizer amplifies details in evidence for the court to view.
for
his
furthers that as a result of the proliferation of digital evidence, many courts have been installing technology that can replay content. Forward-thinking courts with a budget have been implementing AV evidence capture and data management systems. “These types of systems provide for easy integration to the many legacy databases that exist in the justice market. These types of courts realize that there is much more to the digital asset then just the replay of that material.” The United States District Court Southern District of New York currently uses presentation technology for numerous tasks. The Court has the ability to provide video conferencing in every courtroom as well as two conference rooms. While priority is given to matters pending in the District, the Courtroom Technology/ AV Services can be used to provide technology services to other District Courts should they be available. The District also uses Electronic Evidence Presentation, which allows for the presentation of evidence via computer using a combination of hardware and software such as Sanction by Verdict Systems LLC. The hardware includes products such as document cameras, LCD Projectors, and numerous flat-panel monitors. They also use AV for Electronic Court Recording (ECR), which captures a proceeding through digital or tape recording rather than a court reporter. Most criminal cases in the courts are electronically recorded; however, it is the court’s policy that should a guilty plea of a felony be entered it is recorded by a court reporter.
GREATER EFFICIENCY
The New York State Court of Claims’s Reference Guide states that the ability to present using AV technology increases efficiency as well as comprehension. It allows attorneys February/March 2015 24
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
f-m 15 p22-26 aV_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:54 am Page 25
to present documents, objects, presentations, and photos. All visual presentation can be annotated with a touch screen annotator available at both the podium and the witness box, and printed in color and submitted into evidence. At the heart of the courtroom is the podium, which is located between the two counsel tables. In 2012, the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey released the counsel guide for the presentation technologies in which they announced the completion of its five Salinas AV Courtrooms that had been implemented with the goal of creating “an Audio/Visual environment which integrates the latest audio, video and presentation technologies to improve courtroom efficiency.” The courtrooms are equipped to support functions such as the presentation of physical evidence, electronic evidence, teleconferencing, and audio amplification in order to accommodate the stream of new digital evidence as well as existing analog evidence. The systems are designed to be utilized by the casual user, and each courtroom has been equipped with an easy-to-use touch panel system that makes it possible to switch between multiple evidence sources at the touch of a screen. The
court provides a DVD, CD, and VHS player, a document camera, laptop VGA connection, stereo audio jack and PC audio and visual. It is counsel who provides the laptop or device, a trend that Steve Bogart, IT manager and regional sales manager at WolfVision, an Austrian-based manufacturer of visualizers, explains as BYOD. “Bring your own device is really a buzz word being thrown around a lot. What it means is the ability to bring your mobile device and present content from it for all to see. We do this thru our vSolution Connect application or by simply placing the device under the camera. No special cables required.” The Audio/Visual courtroom in Monterey provides support for electronic audio and visual presentation in the courtroom as well as control over the entire system. Control of an AV Courtroom is accomplished using iPad touch panels located at the bench, the clerk’s desk, and counsel table. A simple set of controls allows counsel to select
display units such as a document camera or a DVD player, present evidence to the bench, adjust the volume, and preview evidence before submitting it. One use New York State Courtrooms have used AV for during the past decade has been for the presentation of evidence. Among the technologies used to present evidence are visualizers, such as those manufactured by WolfVision, the only organization to have announced the development of a 3D document camera for which, says Lederer, a jury in an experimental trial put on glasses and were able to see a bloody brick with hair and a baseball bat presented as 3D evidence. Bogart points out, “When it comes to presentation of evidence, the clarity of the image on the display is what's important for jurors, judges, and attorneys. If there is distortion of the image or the colors are not reproduced correctly, they can lose the effect of the evidence being presented.”
The state of AV technology has drastically improved over the past two or three years. —MALCOLM MACALLUM
February/March 2015x WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
25
f-m 15 p22-26 aV_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:54 am Page 26
TRENDING VISUAL
In regard to the advancing quality of AV, Macallum furthers, “One of the areas that VIQ/PESA firmly believes is becoming a major benefit is with digital content. This asset, with the addition of video evidence and metadata is vast. The value locked up in that asset is enormous and can only be accessed with data analytics tools like those being offered by VIQ. Currently these would be qualitative analyses, but soon they will offer predictive tools. The latest generation of video analytic tools can provide much deeper insights into the state of mind of witnesses, accused or others and can provide invaluable help in determining the truthfulness of testimony. With terabytes and terabytes of digital asset and all the value locked up, this trend will explode as the power of these tools is discovered.” Expansion of AV use is certain. Macallum says, “As with evidence, the use of AV capture and digital asset management systems will be
“[Forward-thinking] courts realize that there is much more to the digital asset then just the replay of that material.” —MALCOLM MACALLUM inevitable. The rate at which devices of all sorts are being used, whether smart phones or UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles or drones] to capture evidence, which ends up in the courts, will eventually require that all courts move to advanced capture and digital asset management systems that provide security and auditability.” This growth might require courts to ponder a few things. While people in 1963 may have been impressed that the technology existed for a man on the street to capture the assassination of the President of the United States on an 8mm camera (then the top of the line), today the technology allows for a person with minimal training to make a
WHAT TYPE & SIZE SOLUTION IS BEST?
One of the biggest barriers to moving ahead with new solutions is the question about what to do with the legacy case records. Certain vendors (such as VIQ) can provide an easy path to these courts by providing solutions that will transform legacy data into current useable formats used with the latest solutions. In many cases there are tools available that will even enhance the legacy data, for instance by providing better quality data. High on the list of solutions are easy solutions for judges to use, as are simplified user interfaces that provide advanced features when needed but are easy to use when first implementing. Another big trend is the movement towards less complicated installations. Partnerships such as that between VIQ and PESA combine the best in software with a powerful single cigar box-sized device that provides audio video capture without all the mess. In this case the court gets a clean solution, which comes down to a laptop/tablet and AV management unit, the PESA C58 (5-video, 8-audio channel) or CC22 (2-video and 2-audio channel) and VIQ software. Small courts can use the C22 while larger courts simply replace the C22 with a C58—everything else stays the same and now they have up to 6 video channels (5 single and 1 quad) with 8 audio channels. This clean and simple installation is what many courts want to implement especially if those happen to require mobility or if they are looking to integrate AV conferencing into their records. —John T. Wright, PESA
complete motion picture. As Lederer wrote in his 2014 paper “Judging in the Age of Technology”: “We have not as of yet really had to deal with authentication and metadata,” and that even if evidence is admitted under evidentiary rules, “it is unclear whether judges or jurors will or should believe that evidence given the possibility of technological tampering.” In 2010, CLCT tried the simulated case United States vs. Varic, a one-day experimental trial in which a U.S. citizen was charged with attempted slavery. Among the conclusions was that “it appears that it does not take a great amount of IT skill to fabricate persuasive false IT evidence” and “given adequate defense experts, it could be exceedingly difficult to convict a defendant charged with an IT crime.” Macallum furthers, “Devices such as smart phones and tablets are already in use everywhere, not only by the general public, but also by police, doctors, first responders, insurance companies, and transportation to name a few. All this digital data can and does end up when a liability of dispute arises. Courts must be prepared and are moving in that direction.” In his paper, Lederer notes that the modern age brings with it a huge amount of recorded images. “Cell phones and tablets (and soon personal web cams and drones) ensure that anything of interest results in pictures and audio-video recordings, or, in other words, evidence. Trials and hearings will become far more visual than ever before.” CT
February/March 2015 26
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-m 15 p27-29 movie_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:56 am Page 27
BY EILEEN KORTE
image courtesy Warner Bros.
Assembly Room Movies:
Vetted & Versatile Entertainment
As court managers are acutely aware, citizens do not always consider their courtroom civic duty in positive terms. In fact, a basic Google search of the words “jury duty” turns up top results that include “how to get out of jury duty.” The comments on the related article provide creative suggestions on what excuses will and will not work. Thankfully, a few commenters implore the reader to simply complete his or her civic service. Why is there such disdain for jury
duty? The reasons cited vary from inconvenience to financial concerns related to lost wages. These are real concerns for some, but as the majority of those summoned will not be selected to sit on a jury, many times a dislike of jury duty stems from misinformation and fear. It is unfortunate that a first-time summons recipient may be greeted with negative search results simply by seeking more information about the jury selection process. Over the years, courts have
responded to citizens’ concerns by working to make the jury duty experience more pleasant. A crucial first step is better juror education. The Los Angeles County Superior Court offers a “My Jury Duty Portal” service on its website in this effort. Those in receipt of a summons can login and complete juror orientation online before ever setting foot in a courthouse. In addition, jurors have access to an online FAQ and search tools. An easy-to-navigate website can go a long way in addressing February/March 2015x
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
27
image courtesy Warner Bros.
F-m 15 p27-29 movie_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:56 am Page 28
juror concerns before they appear in the courthouse, making jury duty a more positive experience for all involved. Courts have also worked to address the inconveniences jury duty can impose. Citing Los Angeles County again, potential jurors are required to call in each day to see if they must appear at their designated courthouse. This removes the burden of excessive and unnecessary travel. During a week of jury summons a juror may only have to appear at the courthouse one day. And yet, even with steps taken to make the jury duty experience easier to navigate, waiting is an inevitable part of the process. A potential juror is in a constant state of waiting, either to be called or in an assembly room. This is a common complaint, but luckily, even here improvements are being made. Waiting while being entertained is always preferable to waiting while bored. Increasingly, jury assembly rooms are boasting technology. Along with the magazines of yesteryear are now computers and wireless Internet access. Televisions have
been commonplace for some time, and their versatility as a tool for education or entertainment has been proven. Some courts combine televisions with the right audiovisual equipment to play pre-recorded orientation videos for potential jurors. Other courts are even playing movies to entertain jurors while they wait. Movies in the jury assembly room are gaining steam as they allow for supervised juror entertainment. While many potential jurors will arrive with their own electronic devices, ranging from smart phones to tablet computers, when coupled with wireless Internet access it is possible for jurors to view news stories that may later conflict with their eligibility to sit on some juries. The same can be true for broadcast television played in the assembly room, and even some magazines and newspapers. Movies and other prerecorded programs allow the court to control the media to which jurors have access. Movies, whether shown from a DVD or streamed through popular services like Netflix, do not pose a risk for commercial interruption or unexpected news updates from local media out-
lets as broadcast television can. Movies are a simple and affordable amenity that can make the long hours spent waiting in an assembly room pass quickly.
The Reality of Copyright Infringement
If your courthouse is one of the many that currently plays movies in an assembly room, or would like to, it is important to be aware of copyright concerns. As the primary function of the courts is to uphold the law, an inadvertent infringement of copyright within the courthouse itself would be truly unfortunate. You may be aware that copyrighted motion pictures and other audiovisual programs that are available for rental or purchase in any legal format, such as DVDs or other digital formats, whether streamed or downloaded, are intended for personal, private use only. Viewings in facilities such as a courthouse or community center require a public performance license. As stated in Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Act, copyright owners
February/March 2015 28
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-m 15 p27-29 movie_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:56 am Page 29
Movies, whether shown from a DVD or streamed through popular services like Netflix, do not pose a risk for commercial interruption or unexpected news updates from local media outlets as broadcast television can.
zations, including government agencies, even if the audience is closed and no admission fee is charged. With fines for noncompliance starting at $750 for each inadvertent infringement and climbing to $150,000 for egregious violations, the potential liability is significant. The financial obligations of an infringement, while steep, are still secondary to the ethical concerns of a courthouse breaking federal law.
Copyright Compliance Process
control the use of their work. This means that even casual use, such as an employee training session using a short movie scene, or a one-time
Thankfully, ensuring copyright compliance within your court is a simple and affordable process. Annual facility-based licenses are available that will allow a court to show an unlimited number of motion pictures and other programs for one annual license fee. So called
image courtesy Warner Bros.
Movies are proving to be the go-to media for assembly room entertainment.
Robert Duval in the film “The Judge.”
screening of “12 Angry Men” in an assembly room, requires additional permission in the form of a public performance license. The provisions of the Copyright Act apply equally to for-profit and non-profit organi-
“blanket” licenses provide coverage for hundreds of motion picture copyright holders under a single license agreement. Once licensed, the court may obtain content from any legal source whether purchased
via DVD or iTunes download, borrowed from a library or Redbox, or streamed via services like Hulu, Amazon, or Netflix. An annual public performance license allows the court to get creative. Movies are a great way to entertain potential jurors and they come with a plethora of programming options. Jurors serving in the winter months might crack a smile when presented with movies set in warmer climates such as “Pirates of the Caribbean,” “Jaws,” or “Blue Hawaii.” Holiday films, ranging from “Hocus Pocus” to “Elf” to “New Year’s Eve” are excellent choices for lighthearted fun. For broad appeal, you can never go wrong with a Hollywood blockbuster like “Avatar,” “Titanic,” or “The Avengers.” The possibilities are endless, but make sure your court is copyright compliance before you press “play.” Movies are proving to be the goto for assembly room entertainment as they allow the court to control what information potential jurors can access. At the same time, movies are easy to obtain, affordable, and just plain fun. Creating a welcoming and warm jury assembly experience is key to changing the perception of the jury duty experience for the better. Court managers have the opportunity to leave jurors with a positive memory of their time spent in an assembly room. A pleasant experience can transform the way the public views jury service, resulting in more willing participants of the justice system. CT Eileen Korte is the licensing manager for the United States office of the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation (MPLC). For nine years, she has worked with facilities ranging from federal government agencies and multinational corporations to libraries and health care facilities to ensure comprehensive copyright compliance. February/March 2015x
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
29
F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 11:04 AM Page 30
BY DONNA ROGERS, EDITOR
Risk Assessment Tools Each year 12 million people are booked into local jails, many awaiting trial for nonviolent offenses. Can Courts improve upon their pretrial release criteria to lower these numbers?
udicial discretion has—and always will—play an important part in determining pretrial release. Judges look at objective criteria in addition to drawing on years of experience in considering drug use, ties to community, etc., in determining bail decisions. Though this will continue to be relevant, says John Clark, senior project associate with the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI), over the past few years Courts are looking to create tools that scientifically validate that data, to back up much of what they have believed all along. States and counties are writing this requirement into statutes, Clark furthers. And that act has been very successful. In 2010, for example,
J
Mecklenburg County, N.C., implemented a pretrial risk assessment instrument and a research-based matrix of supervision conditions matched to risk levels. As a result, they reduced the average daily population of the jail by 33 percent (according to a presentation by Marie VanNostrand, Ph.D., Using Evidence to Advance Effective Justice Realignment Pretrial, California Realignment Conference, Sept. 21, 2011). At issue is that each year 12 million people are booked into local jails across the country, the vast majority for nonviolent crimes. More than 60% of inmates in our jails today are awaiting trial, and we spend more than $9 billion annually to incarcerate them, according to research by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF).
In order to reduce the cost of incarceration, the goal of most criminal justice decision makers is to detain defendants who pose a risk to public safety–particularly those who appear likely to commit crimes of violence–and to release those who do not. Yet, according to the LJAF Research Summary (Nov. 2013): data collected shows that “although this may be our goal, it is far from being a reality. Indeed, the research has shown that defendants who are highrisk and/or violent are often released.” In two large jurisdictions that LJAF examined in detail, nearly half of the highest-risk defendants were released pending trial. And, at the other end of the spectrum, its data shows that low-risk, non-violent
February/March 2015 30
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 11:04 AM Page 31
defendants are frequently detained. “Moreover,” it says, “soon-to-bereleased LJAF research on low-risk defendants shows that when they are detained pretrial, they are more likely to commit new crimes in both the near and long term, more likely to miss their day in court, more likely to be sentenced to jail and prison, and more likely to receive longer sentences. In other words, failing to appropriately determine the level of risk that a defendant poses impacts future crime and violence, and carries enormous costs—both human and financial.” However, this writer found in some cases we are moving in the right direction. “Independent surveys have noted that the use of scientifically-validated tools has become legislated in most states, particularly when used
for court decisions,” says Kevin M. Williams, Ph.D., manager, product development, Clinical/Education/ Public Safety Division of Multi-Health Systems, Inc. “For instance, risk/need assessments must meet legal admissibility standards such as Daubert and Frye (see Archer et al., 2006). One recent survey reported that over 75% of forensic clinicians always or almost always use a risk assessment tool when conducting adult risk assessments (Viljoen et al., 2010). “More recently (2014), our own research has confirmed that nearly 75% of U.S. states and Canadian provinces have adopted the use of some published risk/need assessment,” Williams furthers, “with the LSI-R and LS/CMI ranking as the top two most frequently used assessments in North America.”
Yet, the LJAF research summary, which focused specifically on the pretrial period, points out that over 90% of jurisdictions do not use any type of formal risk assessment tools. But it continues: “…although less than 10% of jurisdictions use data driven pretrial risk assessments, these jurisdictions have been able to spend less on pretrial incarceration, while at the same time enhancing public safety.” It goes on to state: “From the beginning, we believed that an easyto-use, data-driven risk assessment could greatly assist judges in determining whether to release or detain defendants who appear before them. And that this could be transformative. In particular, we believed that switching from a system based solely on instinct and experience to one in February/March 2015x
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
31
F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 11:04 AM Page 32
which judges have access to scientific, objective risk assessment tools could further our central goals of increasing public safety, reducing crime, and making the most effective, fair, and efficient use of public resources. We understood that judges already consider many of the most critical factors related to a defendant’s risk of committing a new crime or failing to return to court; however, we also knew that it is extremely difficult for judges to know how to accurately and objectively weigh these factors, or to know which factors, when combined with one another, increase the risk of failure exponentially.” Making this determination can at times be confusing with conflicting information available to decision makers, concurs PJI. According to its primer “Risk Assessment 101”: “Historically, personal experience, professional judgment, confusing statutes, and monetary charge-based bail schedules have guided critical bail decisions. However, in the last decade, communities around the country have demonstrated that the
decision to release or detain a defendant pretrial can be improved by assessing the defendants’ risk.” One validation study of the Kentucky Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument, states PJI, demonstrates that rates of pretrial failure were low even for those considered “high risk.” Those defendants deemed “low risk” had a failure to appear (FTA) rate and a pretrial rearrest rate of “about 6%,” while those determined to be “high risk” had an “11% FTA rate and a 17% rearrest awaiting trial rate.” According to PJI, the pre-trial risk assessment instrument collects more targeted data than other risk/need assessments and contains factors that are associated with increased chances of only two types of failure during a short period of time: failure to appear for all court hearings and rearrest on a new charge. These instruments have been proven to be highly effective in their ability to predict rates of success on pretrial release (return to court and no new arrests while on release). A case in point is the Virginia Risk Assessment Instrument. A study of
that instrument showed its efficacy by demonstrating that low-risk individuals had a 92.9% success rate, averagerisk individuals had an 82.2% success rate, and high-risk individuals had a 68% success rate, reports PJI. One caveat in using pretrial screenings, however, is an ethical one, says Bret White, Ph.D., MSW, and CEO of Abel Screening. Abel Assessments are used to determine sexual interest in adults toward children and juveniles toward juveniles at all points throughout a defendant’s time in the criminal justice system. He notes that the tool should be used only by a licensed mental health professional and should be used not to determine guilt or innocence but to determine treatment. If the client is “disclosive about their history,” in pretrial screening, they need to “protect themselves from incrimination.” The clinician must figure out how to use the information in the best interest of the client, he stresses, e.g., it could be used in a plea bargain agreement where the client already had a conviction and both attorneys agree that the client needs to be open.
February/March 2015 32
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 11:04 AM Page 33
Does Mental Health Factor in Risk Assessment? At the outset of planning this story, CF editors wondered if offenders’ mental health was a factor in pretrial risk and risk assessments. The majority of practitioners this writer spoke with responded that is not the case. PJI’s Clark states: “There is no research that points to [state of mental health] in failure to report.” Winnie Ore, senior program specialist with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD), an organization that has developed its own risk assessment tools, reports that neither of its instruments contain psychological assessments. The NCCD’s Correctional Assessment and Intervention System (CAIS) and Juvenile Assessment and Intervention System (JAIS) are multidimensional assessment and supervision systems that include an actuarial risk assessment and a comprehensive assessment of needs, she says. These assessments are provided within the context of a clinical evaluation of what drives an offender’s delinquent/criminal behaviors, along with recommended supervision strategies and programs that reflect the individual’s attitudes, capacities and learning style. NCCD created CAIS and JAIS by combining three assessments—a risk assessment, a needs assessment, and Strategies for Supervision—and were designed to assist workers to effectively and efficiently supervise offenders in both institutional settings and the community, she notes. Furthermore, HMS’ Williams also concurs that their tool does not directly assess mental health issues but instead includes items that incorporate results from other relevant assessments or diagnoses. In this way, LS/CMI raters do not need to be trained clinical psychologists to use the instrument. “This is a
critical feature because the majority of LS/CMI raters are probation/ parole officers, correctional employees, etc. who do not and are not expected to have this level of training.” He furthers that there is abundant place for those assessing to detect and note specific mental health issues that may require referral to a mental health professional. Carol Fisler, director of mental health court programs, Center for Court Innovation, in New York City, agrees. “Mental illness is not in and of itself a significant risk factor for reoffending.” She says that while “perhaps 40%” of those incarcerated at Rikers have mental issues, there is a huge disparity in their behavior. “You have just incredible heterogeneity with persons with mental illnesses,” she said last fall in a panel discussion on "BK Live" on Brooklyn Independent Media. “A perception among the general public is that every mentally ill person is dangerous and should be incarcerated,” she says. “Some can be floridly psychotic but not necessarily at high risk of reoffending. Others might be quite stable but based on past history and based on other known risk factors could have a very high rate of reoffending....”
New York City Task Force The recommendation
in December 2014 of New York City Mayor Bill Di Blasio’s $130 million Behavioral Health–Criminal Justice Task Force was to help those with serious mental illness and drug abuse by focusing in on using scientifically validated risk assessment tools. Says CCI’s Fisler, the goal is not to necessarily look at the risk of violence, which is one issue, but also “really to focus in on what’s the risk that a person is going to reoffend.” The Center for Court Innovation, founded over 20 years ago as a public/private partnership between the New York State Unified Court
System and the Fund for the City of New York, does research and demonstration projects in the New York City area. One such project is the Brooklyn Justice Initiatives. Begun in November 2013, BJI is a supervised misdemeanor release, bail reform program in New York City. At issue, according to its 2014 Annual Report: “Over 75 percent of non-felony bail cases in New York City involve bail amounts of $1,000 or less—and yet in the vast majority of cases (65 percent), defendants are unable to post that amount. These individuals have been found guilty of no crime—indeed, approximately 25 percent of non-felony defendants detained pre-trial will end up having their cases dismissed.” Using basic eligibility criteria, all those arrested on misdemeanor charges are eligible, says Jessica Kay, BJI project director. In its first year of operation, Brooklyn Justice Initiatives enrolled over 200 participants in its pretrial supervised release program, most of them young men of color. Ensuring participants remain in the community and avoid detention while their case is pending is the primary goal of the program. During its first year of operation, 85 percent of defendants enrolled in the program achieved this goal. They achieve this high rate, she says, by staying in contact in any way they can. Once released to the program in the courthouse staff get in touch with people on their contact list—a neighbor and grandmother, anyone that has any influence on them, she tells us. Also utilized are automated check-in phone calls and in-person check-in, the frequency of contact depending on their risk level. And BJI uses a validated tool, she notes, to determine what their needs may be, so that they can be connected to services on a voluntary basis. They get reminded of court dates, which can be overwhelming, or assist with carfare. If they miss a phone call or in-person visit, we give them a February/March 2015x
WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
33
F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 1:36 PM Page 34
24-hour grace period, she says. And before BJI reports noncompliance to the court, they reach out to their defense attorney enlisting their help. “This is in lieu of bail, we need to do everything we can possibly do to get them back to court,” Kay underscores. In its first full year the program’s success was palpable. “We had 214 enrolled cases, 91% were flagged as High Risk FTA [failure to appear] or not recommended for release,” she says. “[Overall] 85% of the closed cases avoided pretrial detention.”
Red Hook Success Another positive story under the CCI umbrella is the Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, NY. Launched in June 2000,
AD I N DEX
COMPANY
PAGE NO.
APPA...................................11 Carter Goble Lee ................7 Computing System Innovations.....................17 CourtView..........................14 FTR Limited........................5 Infax .....................................2 Journal Technologies .......15 Mixnet ................................19 StunCuff Enterprises, Inc................4 Thermo Fisher Scientific .........................13 Thomson Reuters.............36 Tyler Technologies ...........35 Xerox....................................9 This advertisers index is provided as a service to our readers only. The publisher does not assume liability for errors or omissions.
February/March 2015 34
it is the nation's first multi-jurisdictional community court. It is unusual in that a single judge hears criminal and family court cases. “It treats people organically—they are going to many courts that really are interrelated—and deals more holistically with them,” says Julian Adler, director. Red Hook, though part of the city of New York, is geographically isolated—no subway connects with it, he details, and 70% live in the Red Hook Houses. “How could you not do housing Court?” he points out. Its Family Court also holds cases (juvenile delinquency only). The Red Hook judge has an array of sanctions and services at his disposal. These include community restitution projects, short-term psycho-educational groups, and longterm treatment (e.g., drug treatment, mental health treatment, and trauma-focused psychotherapy). For juveniles the project has a resource center that offers a GED program, arts and youth programming. Red Hook also has an onsite clinic staffed by social service professionals who use trauma- and evidenceinformed approaches to assess and connect individuals to appropriate services. Those arrestees deemed appropriate are given a comprehensive assessment within the 24 hours before arraignment (New York has a 24-hour arraignment statute). “The distinction is—and many courts (especially problem solving courts) do comprehensive assessments—though not within 24 hours,” says Adler. Red Hook's ability to conduct full assessments within 24 hours post arrest inspired a program called the MAP project (for misdemeanor assessment program, though it works for felonies too)... But, Adler explains, MAP is created for court environments where the 24-hour full assessment is not feasible. It enlightens the court if the offender needs in- or outpatient care, detox, trauma-informed care, etc., he says, noting that getting a full assessment before arraignment is “incredibly powerful.”
An Independent Evaluation In 2013 the National Center for State Courts completed an independent evaluation of the Red Hook Justice Center. When research began in 2010 it used data from 2008 in order to allow a minimum follow-up period of two years. According to the report: “The Justice Center increased the use of alternative sentences: 78 percent of offenders received community service or social service sanctions, compared with 22 percent among comparable cases processed at the regular criminal courthouse in Brooklyn. The Justice Center reduced the number of offenders receiving jail sentences by 35 percent.” In addition, there were significant differences in how the Justice Center used jail compared to the downtown courthouse. “At Red Hook, almost no defendants (1 percent) received jail at arraignment.” Instead, jail was reserved as a “secondary” sanction, for offenders who were noncompliant with their initial community or social service sentences. “Adult defendants handled at the Justice Center were 10 percent less likely to commit new crimes than offenders who were processed in a traditional courthouse; juvenile defendants were 20 percent less likely to re-offend. Further analysis indicated that these differences were sustained well beyond the primary two-year follow-up period.” For each of the 3,210 adult misdemeanor defendants arraigned at the Justice Center in 2008, the NCSC study concluded that taxpayers realized “an estimated savings of $4,756 per defendant in avoided victimization costs relative to similar cases processed in a traditional misdemeanor court—a total of $15 million in avoided victimization costs.” And after factoring the upfront costs of operating the Justice Center, “total resource savings in 2008 were nearly $7 million.” CT WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM
F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 11:04 AM Page 35
F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 11:04 AM Page 36