Some light news for the weekend. This one satisfies me not only as a lawyer but also as a techno-geek.

A court this week in Guangzhou conducted a long-distance criminal trial via video conference (??????).¹ This was an appeal to a robbery conviction heard by the Guangdong High Court, which is the highest level judicial forum in the province.

The judges and prosecutors were in Guangzhou, while the appellant and his legal counsel were in the city of Heyuan, which is several hundred kilometers away. As you can see in the photograph, the appellant is sitting there in Heyuan (the guy in the orange jumpsuit, naturally) surrounded by what looks like a roomful of cops. The judges and prosecutors are in a remote location looking at large-screen displays.

If you’ve never used this kind of tech before, it’s not bad. You can use either a split-screen display or just have the entire screen showing the remote feed. The articles I read on this did not have a lot of details, but supposedly the parties to the case shared and tested evidence using this setup as well. Whether that just means holding up a paper to the camera (that would be the low-tech approach) or if they are availing themselves of one of the many online conferencing solutions that include file sharing, I don’t know. Certainly there are a lot of choices out there.

The advantages of this system are obvious. First, this is saving a lot of money. They don’t have to transport the criminal to Guangzhou and pay for related expenses like temporary incarceration. Second, this is more efficient. When you take travel and other logistics out of the equation, this kind of appeal potentially could be a real time saver.

Another issue comes to mind. There have been several courtroom incidents recently where the defendant has actually attacked the judge(s) physically. If they want to cut down on that sort of thing, then you put the judges and prosecutors in a remote location.

Apparently Guangdong wants to use this setup for so-called “grassroots” courtrooms (i.e., courts at the very local levels). Now we’re talking real efficiency savings. This would potentially give all related parties access to highly trained judges (and their administrative infrastructure) and not require travel of the defendant, lawyers, or judges. This could mean significant cost savings and possibly a decrease in the time it takes to hear cases.

The only question that comes to mind concerns examination and cross-examination of witnesses via video conferencing. I’m not a litigator and have never been involved in anything more than a deposition, so this is speculation on my part. However, it seems to me that since the judicial system here has never really placed much emphasis on personal testimony, any problems associated with examining witnesses will not overly concern judges. If I was a criminal defense attorney, on the other hand, I’d be wary of this type of setup, although it depends on several factors. For example, there’s just no way you can get in the face of a witness during cross-examination via video conferencing; defense counsel and witnesses really need to be in the same room.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. If Guangdong makes a go of this and reports on significant efficiency savings, then the practice might spread to other provinces.

Sources: Information Times and Xinhua Guangzhou (via iFeng) – both are in Chinese only
________________________________

1. Not sure how to translate this term. It’s a bit awkward, and I don’t know what the analog English term is. Essentially it’s remote/long distance video trial.[↩]

________________________________