We established at the outset that our discussion should be
laced with repeated references back to the values that we wish to maintain
or enhance through the use of technology.
It is fitting, then, to conclude the paper with reference to
the work of a federal appellate judge.
Judge Richard L. Nygaard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit responded to some of the ideas in the 1995 Long
Range Plan for the Federal Courts with an article describing his
own scenario of federal courts in the 21st century.
Judge Nygaard describes changes in procedure that comport well
with the views expressed here, and goes beyond them with challenging
forecasts about changes in jurisdiction and substantive law.
Among other things, he addresses the consequences of making law,
and court work in particular, more available to the public through widespread
electronic dissemination. In his description, there is a chat room where the public can
discuss on-going litigation with the presiding judges.
Judge Nygaard’s fictional protagonist, Judge Leia Skywalker,
was at first reluctant to engage in such dialogue, but she came to change her mind:
Indeed, now that citizens were afforded the opportunity to participate
in legal debates, their opinions
about the law and the role of judges ...had begun to change.
The public no longer
considered the law to be a mysterious and foreign entity....Rather,
they began to develop a greater respect and appreciation for the necessary
role of the courts and the importance of the rule of law in society.
So too had public opinions about judges
shifted. Through interaction with judges over the FedJurNet,
citizens had come to better understand that judges
were human beings
who brought particular values, beliefs, and life experiences with them
to the bench. As such, people were generally less quick to criticize judges
and seemed to recognize that judges were often asked to make very difficult
decisions concerning fundamental
moral and ethical questions.
The importance of these shifts in public opinion, Judge Skywalker
noted, was that public confidence in the judicial system had never
been higher. This
marked a significant difference from the way the nation felt about the
judicial system during the
last decade of the 20th century when it had become the object of scorn
for some legislators and executives who knew better, and a general public
that did not.
She then logged off her computer; and, because I have rattled
on far too long, so will I.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express appreciation to the National Council for Automated
Information Research (NCAIR) for
their generous support of the preparation of this paper.
The paper was presented originally at the NCAIR-sponsored David
J. Dixon Conference, Using the
Internet to Improve the Administration of Justice, or Inventing the
Courthouse for the 21st Century, which was held in Washington, D.C.
on April 23-24, 1998. I also extend special thanks to the Federal Judicial Center,
and its Director, Honorable Rya W. Zobel, for the opportunity to do
this work.
Appendix 1
Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards
TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1. ACCESS
TO JUSTICE
1.1 Public Proceedings:
The court conducts its proceedings and other public business
openly.
1.2 Safety, Accessibility,
and Convenience: Court
facilities are safe, accessible, and convenient to use.
1.3 Effective
Participation: All who
appear before the court are given the opportunity to participate effectively
without undue hardship or inconvenience.
1.4 Courtesy,
Responsiveness, and Respect:
Judges and other trial court personnel are courteous and responsive
to the public and accord respect to all with whom they come into contact.
1.5 Affordable
Costs of Access: The
costs of access to the trial court’s proceedings and records––whether
measured in terms of money, time, or the procedures that must be followed––are
reasonable, fair, and affordable.
2. EXPEDITION
AND TIMELINESS
2.1 Case Processing: The trial court establishes and complies with recognized guidelines
for timely case processing while, at the same time, keeping current
with its incoming caseload.
2.2 Compliance with Schedules:
The trial court disburses funds promptly, provides reports
and information according to required schedules, and responds to requests
for information and other services on an established schedule that
assures their effective use.
2.3 Prompt
Implementation of Law and Procedure:
The trial court promptly implements changes in law and procedure.
3.
EQUALITY, FAIRNESS, AND JUSTICE
3.1 Fair and Reliable
Judicial Process: Trial
court procedures faithfully adhere to relevant laws, procedural rules,
and established policies.
3.2 Juries:
Jury lists are representative of the jurisdiction from which
they are drawn.
3.3 Court
Decisions and Actions: Trial
courts give individual attention to cases, deciding them without undue
disparity among like cases and upon legally relevant factors.
3.4 Clarity:
Decisions of the trial court unambiguously address the issues
presented to it and make clear how compliance can be achieved.
3.5 Responsibility
for Enforcement: The
trial court takes appropriate responsibility for the enforcement of
its orders.
3.6 Production
and Preservation of Records:
Records of all relevant court decisions and actions are accurate
and properly preserved.
4.
INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
4.1 Independence and
Comity: A trial court
maintains its institutional integrity and observes the principle of
comity in its intergovernmental relations.
4.2 Accountability for
Public Resources: The
trial court responsibly seeks, uses, and accounts for its public resources.
4.3 Personnel Practices
and Decisions: The trial
court uses fair employment practices.
4.4 Public Education: The trial court informs the community of its programs.
4.5 Response
to Change: The trial
court anticipates new conditions or emergent events and adjusts its
operations as necessary.
5.
PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
5.1 Accessibility: The trial court and the justice it delivers are perceived by
the public as accessible.
5.2
Expeditious, Fair, and Reliable Court Functions:
The public has trust and confidence that the basic trial court
functions are conducted expeditiously and fairly and that its decisions
have integrity.
5.3
Judicial Independence and Accountability:
The trial court is perceived to be independent, not unduly
influenced by other components of government, and accountable.
|
