February / March 2015

February/March 2015 Vol. 13 No. 1C

ou

rts

Tod

ay

69 L

ym

e R

oad

, H

an

over

, N

H 0

3755

CH

AN

GE

S

ER

VIC

E R

EQ

UE

ST

ED

Taming Workflow & Paperwork

Risk Assessment Instruments

Vetted EntertainmentFor AssEmbly rooms

CT Cover F-M 2015 v2_CT Cover 11/04 3/3/15 1:08 PM Page 1

CT Cover F-M 2015 v2_CT Cover 11/04 3/3/15 1:08 PM Page 2

V O L U M E 1 3 N U M B E R 1

F E B R U A R Y / M A R C H 2 0 1 5

F E A T U R E S

8 APPA & NACM Shows Product Reviews

18 Taming Court Workflow Processes & Paperwork

22 Eye on the Future: Newest A/V in the Courtroom

27 Assembly Room Movies: Vetted & Versatile Entertainment

30 Risk Assessment Tools in Practice

4 Courts in the Media

34 Ad Index

D E P A R T M E N T S

Publisher & Executive EditorThomas S. Kapinos

Assistant PublisherJennifer Kapinos

EditorDonna Rogers

Contributing EditorsMichael Grohs, Bill Schiffner

G.F. Guercio, Kelly Mason

Art DirectorJamie Stroud

Marketing RepresentativesBonnie Dodson(828) 479-7472

Art Sylvie(480) 816-3448

Peggy Virgadamo(718) 456-7329

is published bi-monthly by:Criminal Justice Media, Inc

PO Box 213Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

310.374.2700

Send address changes to:COURTS TODAY69 Lyme Road

Hanover, NH 03755 orfax (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 TODAY69 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 © 2015Criminal Justice Media, Inc.

with alternative & diversion programs

with alternative & diversion programs

Cover image Courtesyof Warner Bros.

22

f-m 2015 p03 toC ne W Design_Ct 2/05 p004 toC 3/3/15 9:34 Pm Page 3

COU RTS I N TH E M E DIA

WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM4

February/March 2015

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundationannounced that it will dedicate $75-million over five yearsto help reduce the pressure on the nation’s overstuffedjails, reported the February 11 edition of The Chronicle ofPhilanthropy.

Some of the money will go to a set of competitivegrants for local jurisdictions to come up with promisingways to keep jail populations down, says the article byAlex Daniels.

Applications for the grants are due on March 31. In May,20 jurisdictions will be awarded $150,000 each to developtheir ideas. Next year, 10 of those grantees will be awardedup to $2 million each to put their plans into action.

JAIL OPERATING COSTS: $22.2 BILLIONWhile the federal prison population has been decliningrecently, evidence suggests that local jails—where trendsare 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, thefoundation said, citing Department of Justice figures. Theannual tab for the cities and counties to run the facilities is$22.2 billion.

Laurie Garduque, MacArthur’s director for justicereform, says that during the past 20 years the average stayfor a jail inmate has grown from 14 days to more thanthree weeks. The longer stays jeopardize detainees’employment and interrupt their education.

The foundation will look for ways to encourage locallaw enforcement to issue summons more often thanmaking arrests, expedite pretrial reviews, and developstandardized assessments of an inmate’s risk of flight orfurther crime if he or she is released.

About 75 percent of inmates in community jails arenonviolent offenders or pretrial detainees accused of non-violent crimes, according to the foundation.

The February announcement marks a shift in priori-ties in the foundation’s criminal-justice programs.During the past two decades, MacArthur has spent or

MACARTHUR FUND PLEDGES $75 MILLION TO REDUCE LOCAL JAIL POPULATIONS

F-M 15 p04-06 Mini_CT 2/05 p006-13 NEWS 3/4/15 1:49 PM Page 4


February/March 2015

6 WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM

pledged about $165 mill ion toimprove the treatment of juvenilesin the nation’s court and prisonsystem. Much of the juvenile-jus-tice work involved getting localitiesto make changes in how theyprocess juveniles, particularlyminorities and low-income offend-ers, and promote successes so they

can be used nationally, says TheChronicle.

"We’re ramping down that workas we’re ramping up our work injails," Garduque says.

In addition to the competitivegrants, the foundation will supportresearch into alternatives to jail andenlist four organizations—the

Center for Court Innovation, theJustice Management Institute, JusticeSystem Partners, and the VeraInstitute of Justice—to provide guid-ance to the grant winners.

ONE OF FOUR JUSTICE PARTNERSThe Center for Court Innovation ishighlighted in the story RiskAssessment Tools in Practice (page 30).Founded two decades ago as a pub-lic/private partnership between theNew York State Unified CourtSystem and the Fund for the City ofNew York, it does research anddemonstration projects in the NewYork City area.

Projects include the BrooklynJustice Initiatives and the Red HookCommunity Justice Center also inBrooklyn. Both of the projects havefocused on pretrial assessments thatget low-risk offenders, including juve-niles, out of jail and into communitytreatment.

In 2013 an independent evalua-tion of the Red Hook project by theNational Center for State Courtsfound the adult misdemeanor defen-dants handled at the Justice Centerwere 10 percent less likely to com-mit new crimes than offenders whowere processed in a traditional cour-thouse; juvenile misdemeanordefendants were 20 percent lesslikely to re-offend.

The report also concluded thattotal resource savings in 2008 for theRed Hook misdemeanor programwere nearly $7 million.

The MacArthur Foundationnotes that data local jurisdictionscollect about crime suspects fromthe time of an arrest and throughthe court process varies by localityand is hard to use to shape policy.Garduque hopes the involvementof the broader group of criminal-justice experts will help make senseof the numbers.

"It will be a challenge," she says,"but we’re putting in place an infra-structure to support that effort."

COU RTS I N TH E M E DIA

One study showed that using pretrial assessments for their cases as an alternative tojail, juvenile misdemeanor offenders were 20 percent less likely to re-offend.



February/March 2015


BY BILL SCHIFFNER, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Resource Expo Stars atAPPA ConferenceLeading off the 2015 list of justicetrade show/conferences was January’sAmerican Probation and ParoleAssociation’s (APPA) 2015 WinterTraining Institute in Tampa. Theevent featured a host of educationalworkshops, intensive training pro-grams, special sessions and theresource expo designed specificallyfor community corrections.

The highlight of the conferencewas reported to be the resource expo,which featured an exhibit hall stockedwith the latest products and servicesfor probation and parole profession-als. “APPA tries to pay special atten-tion to the needs and feedback of ourexhibitors,” commented APPA exec-utive director, Carl Wicklund. “As aresult, our resource expo hours andevents ensured maximum attendance

by our institute participants.”Here is a sampling of the hot

products that were creating a buzz:

CUP TESTINGAmerican Bio Medica Corp. offers

new RTC II, designed for the crimi-nal justice market. This is an accu-rate, cost effective and easy to useall-inclusive cup test that will detectup to 14 of the most commonlyabused drugs.

www.abmc.com, 1.800.227.1243

WEB-BASED SOFTWARENorthpointe Suite is an integrat-

ed web-based assessment, caseplanning and case managementsystem for criminal justice practi-tioners. Modules include COMPASCore Risk/Needs which takes a“retrospective” look at risk and

needs factors for placing andsupervising the offender in thecommunity, COMPAS Reentry forthe population who has beenincarcerated for more than 18months, COMPAS Women torefine and guide treatment plan-ning for women offenders, and

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.

F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/3/15 1:13 PM Page 8

F-M 15 p8-17 show prods_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 10:53 AM Page 9

February/March 2015


COMPAS Youth for delinquentyouth ages 12 to 17.

http://www.northpointeinc.com,1.888.221.4615

DRUG TESTINGCorrisoft and ABK Remote Drug

Testing Inc., an electronic remotemonitoring and drug-testing spe-cialist, have partnered to provide amobile solution for remote testing ofdrug and alcohol usage. Corrisoft’sAIR (Alternative to Incarceration viaRehabilitation) platform combines asmartphone providing direct com-munication between offenders,

supervising agency personnel, andCorrisoft’s re-entry specialists. ABKuses its drug testing applicationcalled eRam which features dedicat-ed computer software that connectsto a client’s camera in order toassess and monitor its subjectsremotely through eye analysis andan oral drug screen.

www.corrisoft.com, 1.859.271.1190

PROBATIONMONITORING TOOL

Adventfs.com’s DiversionManager is a solution for probationprofessionals to assist in managing,educating and monitoring offenders.It offers a series of online educationprograms to provide graduatedsanctions or divert qualified offend-ers into a positive prevention experi-ence. The software also gives pro-bation officers the ability to monitorthe progress of the offenders andrun activity reports.

www.adventfs.com, 1.866.494.8556

GIS MAPPING SOFTWAREMarquis Software’s OMIS

Community Supervision solutionoffers real-time GIS mapping capa-bilities wrapped into their case man-agement and inmate managementtools. A recent GIS project in the

Arkansas Department of Correction(ADC) and the Arkansas CommunityCorrection (ACC) using this softwareis changing that paradigm by lever-

aging existing information to producereal time GIS mapping, layers andanalysis that not only tracks commu-nity supervised offenders for theACC and inmate data in the ADCbut also provides analysis tools. www.marquisware.com, 1.850.877.8864

TAILORED SOLUTIONSFor more than two decades, The

Change Companies has collaboratedwith medical and treatment teams,alcohol and other drug educators,correction agencies and healthcarecompanies to create tailored materi-als and programs to support behav-ioral change for special populations.

www.changecompanies.net, 1. 888.889.8866

CHECK-IN SOFTWAREASIware showcased their new

mobile, supervised check-in applica-tion, PROOFF. This software willenable probation, parole and othersupervisory organizations to providebetter quality oversight, more effi-ciently. PROOFF was built with a

Adventfs.com’sDiversion Manager



February/March 2015


focus on the following objectives:Provide organizations with a tool tomanage caseloads more efficiently,enable organizations to create amore flexible program structure toobtain more desirable program out-comes and create a product that isaffordable and easy to use for boththe supervisee and supervisor.

www.asi-ware.com, 1.937.845.1076

FLEXIBLE REMOTEBREATH TEST

SCRAM Remote Breath is a flexi-ble option in breath testing. It is thefirst handheld, wireless, portablebreath alcohol tester that includesgovernment-grade facial recognition,high-resolution photos, BrAC

results, and a GPS location withevery test. Automated facial match-ing reduces manual photo review by90%-95%, while random, scheduled,and on-demanding testing providesmore flexibility to monitor clients.

www.alcoholmonitoring.com,1.800.557.0861

PAYMENT OPTIONSJPay features a wide variety of

payment channelsfor offendersneeding to meettheir parole andprobation obliga-tions. The com-pany can alsoprovide automated IVR (interactivevoice response) phone reminderswith an immediate payment option,which helps agencies boost theircollection rates.

www.jpay.com, 1.800.574.5729

JURY MANAGEMENTSYSTEM

JURY+ Web Generation(WebGen) is a complete jury man-agement system that provides thefull functionality of the JURY+ NextGeneration system in a browser-based environment. WebGen is

built using the latest web technologyand has been developed using thesame business rule processing as itspredecessor, which has been refinedover two decades and is currentlyinstalled in 400+ courts across NorthAmerica and internationally.www.jurysystems.com, 1.800.222.6974

MANAGEMENTSOLUTIONS

Thomson Reuters is committed toprovide customers with unrivaled

solutions that integrate content,expertise and technologies, reportsthe company. C-Track CMS deliversjust that, offering courts customiz-

able management solutions config-ured to how a court functions. AtNACM, attendees spoke with theirexperts about C-Track CMS, includ-ing new features and functions lead-ing to the next generation of adapt-able case management systems.

www.thomsonreuters.com,1.877.923.7800

E-COURT SYSTEMTurboCourt is an award-winning

eGovernment technology for self-represented litigants, offering appel-late, civil, family, and domestic vio-

NACM Conference: Focused on the FutureNext up in the 2105 judicial show lineup, is The National Association of CourtManagement (NACM) Conference, which was held February 8-10 in LostPines (Austin), Texas. This years’ gathering focused on how the world of courtadministration has been impacted by case processing and technologicaladvancements, workforce demographics, societal expectations, and leadership.

Many educational sessions will focus particular attention on the recentlyrevised NACM Core Competencies (The Core).

Two outstanding keynote speakers kicked off the conference. Judge JohnCleland, senior judge on the McKean County Court of Common Pleas,spoke on Public Trust and Confidence. Judge Cleland became a householdname in 2011 when he was assigned to the trial of former Penn State footballcoach Jerry Sandusky.

Attendees also were well informed by a talk given by Rebecca LoveKourlis, former justice of the Colorado Supreme Court and executive directorof the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.

In addition to some powerful learning opportunities, attendees enjoyednetworking events and a full exhibit show with a number of new productintroductions:



February/March 2015


lence casetypes nation-w i d e .TurboCourt’s3-step guid-

ed interview process includes inter-active smart forms, e-filing, e-serve,e-payment, & advanced workflowsthat seamlessly integrate with morecase management systems than anyother e-filing product. The system’sprivate-cloud platform is simple-to-use, easy-to-administer and fits alllitigants, all case types and allcourts. www.TurboCourt.com, 1.877.260.1792

NAVIGATION SYSTEMThe CourtSight Suite is an elec-

tronic courthouse navigation systemfor your courthouse. DocketCallprovides real-time docket and keyfacility information to patrons, alle-

viating wayfinding confusion andallowing patrons to successfullynavigate through your facility. Thesystem uses commercial LCDs andkiosks to electronically guidepatrons to their destination.

www.infax.com, 1.770.209.9925

SELF-REPRESENTEDLITIGANTS E-FILE

With Odyssey Guide & File, asuite of tools developed to provideaccess to justice for all constituents,self-represented litigants can nowbe guided through the process of

completing court forms and filingcases online. Courts can easily cre-ate Web-based interviews for their

court by leveraging the library ofexisting interviews from other juris-dictions and the Odyssey Guide &File authoring tool.

www.tylertechnologies.com,1.800.431.5776

JURY MANAGEMENTCourthouse Technologies has 50

years of combined experience devel-oping solutions for the jury manage-ment process. This experience hastaught them that superior jury man-agement systems are not crafted justby computer programmers, but bydedicated technology professionalswho are specialists in the jury man-



February/March 2015


agement field. Their team of devel-opers has built more jury manage-ment systems than any other vendoranywhere, says the firm.

www.courthouse-technologies.com,1.877.685.2199

COURT CASEMANAGEMENTSOFTWARE

Justice Systems, Inc.’s FullCourtEnterprise is a complete, fully inte-grated court case management soft-ware system that runs in an on-premises or hosted/cloud environ-ment and can exchange data with

any external system. FullCourtEnterprise provides a powerful back-end infrastructure, an innovativebrowser-based user interface, and acomprehensive collection of modulartools and applications. FullCourtEnterprise’s customizable, table-based architecture allows the systemto be widely configured to meet thespecific requirements of the Court.www.justicesystems.com, 1.505.883.3987

CASE MANAGEMENTSOFTWARE

From rules-driven caseflow torole-driven dashboards and queues,

CourtView’s JWorks CMS puts thepower of intelligent, dynamic pro-cessing where it belongs—with thecourt. And now, JWorks allowsusers to personalize virtually everypage so that they get exactly theinformation they need, when andhow they need it—whether at theirdesk or on the go.

www.courtview.com, 1.800.406.4333

PAPERLESS CASEMANAGEMENT

Benchmark is an innovative, paper-less court case management system,says its developer Pioneer Technology

Group. With Benchmark, a court canquickly eliminate the problems ofmanaging multiple systems and elimi-nate the time and labor invest-ed in post-court processing ofpaper files. The court can maxi-mize efficiency with customconfiguration, paperless in-court and processing, and fullfeatured online access for thejudiciary and all stakeholders.

www.ptghome.com,1.800.280.5281

JURY SELECTIONSOFTWARE

Xerox’s AgileJury solution (ver-sion 4.0) allows courts to automateand streamline the entire jury man-agement process, including the useof mobile platforms. Courts canmodel and deliver random jurorselection and selected pool size, eas-ily update summons informationand communicate with citizensthrough the Internet. The solutionuses industry standard algorithms toensure equal probability of all possi-ble combinations to ensure juryselection is indiscriminate. In addi-tion, AgileJury can be interfacedwith the court’s existing informationtechnology to facilitate a full inte-gration into the justice system.www.xerox.com/justice, 1.877.414.2676



February/March 2015


BY G.F . GUERCIO, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

Software systems takethe snarl of complex scheduling,processes and paperwork, and alsoorganize, automate, and streamlinethe glut, increasing functionality,accessibility, and maximizingresources to best manage operations.

Here, we have compiled a list ofbest software to help you makeorder in the court a reality.

The McGirr Court ManagementSystem manages with real-time,360-degree views to empower case-flow managers and optimize out-comes, relates Jeff Nadler, the com-pany’s vice president of Sales. Builton leading-edge technology, it pro-vides scalability from tens of usersup to thousands of users and mil-lions of cases. The Justice Portalenables parties’ access to a case and

their legal representatives to dobusiness with the court throughresponsive and intuitive online ser-vices from any device, any time.

Services can expand withCourtView Justice Solutions, whichrecently announced its new inte-grated document management sys-tem (iDMS), according to SueHumphreys, director of IndustrySolutions. It can be seamlessly cou-pled with its suite of case manage-ment systems for courts, attorneys,and supervision. “ShowCase iDMSsupports on-demand or high-speedbatch scanning, configurable key-word indexing and full text OCR,along with securable editing toolsfor sizing, rotation, annotation,redaction, note taking, etc.,” shesays. “Media is quickly related tonames, cases, and specific activity

and easily scanned, uploaded, orga-nized, and retrieved from within theCMS.” And the iDMS Electronic FileCabinet is accessible from any desk-top or mobile device, depending onCMS configuration.

“C-Track CMS offers a flexibleand configurable approach to docu-ment management while solvingcommon problems that arise withscanner device incompatibilities,”notes Manoj Jain, Thomson Reuters,vice president, Court ManagementSolutions. C-Track supports thescanning of court documents indi-vidually or in bulk using barcodesand automatically links scanned fileswith the proper case docket entry.Document recognition serviceincludes error logging and notifica-tion of any issues during the scan-ning process. Using the Rules

F-M 15 18-22 workflow_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:53 AM Page 18

February/March 2015x

19WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM

Engine, clients can configure customworkflows to automatically routeelectronic files based on pre-defined conditions to individualusers, groups, or external parties forreview, approval, notice, or action.Jain adds, “C-Track can also inte-grate with third-party DMS andscanning solutions.”

Court Clerk uses fingerprint scan-ners for both authentication and elec-tronic signing of forms by judges,clerks, attorneys, and officers.Fingerprint scanners, along with sig-nature pads and PDF generation offorms and reports, allow a court tobecome virtually paperless, accordingto Paul Sellers, operations adminis-trator, Syscon, Inc. The system pro-vides scanning, indexing, and viewingof any document associated with acase. Flexible interfaces allow transferof information with law enforcement,integrated online payments, tele-phone reminders, and adjudicationinformation to state agencies to keepall agencies up to date while improv-ing accuracy, he says.

ECourt is a web-based case man-agement system that leverages a keyadvantage: it was architected from theground up as a highly configurablebusiness processing engine that fulfillsthe complex requirements of process-ing all case types across multiplecourts and justice partners, saysJacoba Poppelton, marketing manag-er, Journal Technologies. (The compa-ny is the merger of three long stand-ing firms—New Dawn Technologies,Sustain Technologies, and ISD Corp.)

“Users only need a web browseron their desktops, thus cuttingadministrative and hardware needs toan absolute minimum.” She addsJournal Technologies has developedcase management software solutionsfor courts of all jurisdictions, prosecu-tors, public defenders, probation andother government entities.

"Long a leader in providing guid-ed interview based e-filing, theTurboCourt suite has been expand-ed to provide case types and prod-ucts that serve both filers and court

operations,” says Scott Crampton,project manager. New products anddeployments include Tax Court andProcess Serve e-filing in Arizona,Small Claims filings in NewHampshire, uncontested divorcecases in Texas and statewide deploy-ment of Family Abuse Prevention Actcases in Oregon, he notes.

Tybera—along with the NorthCarolina Administrative Offices ofthe Courts—developed a domesticviolence efiling wizard that signifi-cantly reduces the time it takes to filea complaint, generate a protectiveorder and have it approved andserved, according to Norm Anderson,vice president, Sales and Marketing,who notes that there was a lot ofinterest “in this presentation ateCourts in Las Vegas.” Trained ser-vice providers help complete anonline form and e-notification is sentto interested parties (schools, daycare, etc.). The complaint and protec-tive order are generated automaticallyfor review and implementation, and atext message of the status is sent tothe victim and law enforcement.

Tyler Technologies’ Incode CourtOnline meets needs as a customiz-able, user-friendly system allowingdefendants to pay municipal courtfines online at any time, saysMichael Kleiman, director of mar-keting for Tyler’s Court and JusticeDivision. Full and partial paymentsare accepted, and payment planscan be established. Deferred adjudi-cation, extensions or state-specificonline driver safety courses can alsobe requested by defendants throughthe web portal. Kleiman concludes,“Features of the system can beturned on or off at any time depend-ing on court size and need, and it isfully integrated into the Incodemunicipal court solution to facilitatedata export and eliminate a third-party system.”

Eliminating paper and multipleprocesses, streamlining paymentsand improving filing are all part of thecontinued software development forcourts that helps tame the hassles.


February/March 2015


McGirr CourtManagementSystem

• Document andrecords management

• Supports any config-uration for cases,entities, parties,roles, jurisdictions,divisions

• Customer config-urable modules forevents, businessrules, workflows,court orders

• Rostering andresource management

• Automatic hearingscheduling

• eFiling • Justice portal • Scan documents

to case • Payments processing

McGirr Information

Technology Pty. Ltd.

www.mcgirrtech.com

Jeff Nadler, VP of Sales

jeff.nadler@mcgirr-

tech.com

480.857.6341

C•Track CMS

• Document management

• Scanning• Flexible and config-

urable• Supports scanning of

court documentsindividually and inbulk

• Barcode scanning• Automatic document

linking with docketentry

• Error logging andnotification

• Automatic routingaccounting pre-defined conditions

Manoj Jain,

Vice President

Thomson Reuters Court

Management Solutions

mjain@thomson-

reuters.com

ShowCase iDMS

• Tag and organizedocuments, email,pictures, video,audio, other artifacts

• Automatically ingestand index documentsgenerated by theCMS

• Rule-driven routingand sharing acrosscases, participants,and users

• Electronic file andpackage stamping(date, time, etc.)

• Capture, secure, andinsert signatures

• Automatic and man-ual redaction

CourtView Justice

Solutions

Gary Egner, Director of

Business Development

[email protected]

800.406.4333

www.courtview.com

eCourt

• Configurabilityincluding workflows,triggers to initiateitems in a workflow,time standards, andad hoc workflowredirection

• Calendaring: Timeslots allow determin-ing in advance whichevents heard by judgeor panel, time/placeand notices automati-cally generated toprinter/email

• Reporting• Document manage-

ment: Secure envi-ronment for docu-ments, scanning,indexing and storage

• eCourt Public: Publicfacing interface togive public, lawyersand litigants func-tionality to pay trafficfines/fees, file newcases or documentson existing cases,and make electronicpayments

• Notes, Checklistsand Minutes: Staffcan attach virtual‘post-it notes’ tocases

[email protected]

www.newdawn.com

(coming soon: journal-

technologies.com)

Co

nta

Ct

fe

atu

re

SP

ro

du

Ct

CaSe ManageMent SourCeS




TurboCourt

• Diverse court e-filingproduct suite: appel-late court, trial courtattorney and special-ized self-representede-filing systems incivil, small claims,family, tax court,child support anddomestic violencecase types

Scott Crampton,

Project Manager

503.508.1431

TurboCourt.com

customers@turbo-

court.com

877.260.1792

Court Clerk

• Configured to indi-vidual court opera-tions

• Case administrationand tracking

• Docket maintenanceand printing for ini-tial appearance,arraignment, trial,review, and hearing

• Complete bankaccount(s) mainte-nance, check writingand printing, andbank reconciliationfunctions

• Maintenance ofdocket entries, fees,judges, officers,attorneys, etc.

• Scanning of docu-ments associatedwith docket entriesfor paperless court

• Auto-assignment ormanual entry of casenumbers

• Management ofreports and integrat-ed custom reportgeneration

Syscon, Inc.

1.205.758.2000

1.800.797.2661

[email protected]

www.syscononline.com

Incode

• Leading-edge functionality

• Municipal court soft-ware robust andeasy-to-use

• Feature-rich applica-tions streamline casemanagement tomore efficiently serveconstituents no mat-ter size or scope ofoffice

• Cloud based solu-tions deploy, config-ure, maintain andupdate the softwareapplications andrelated data

Tyler Technology

[email protected]

DomesticViolence eFiling

• Efiling wizardreduces time to filecomplaint, generateprotective order,approve and serve

• Email and cell num-bers are captured fore-notification tointerested parties

• Complaint automati-cally generated andefiled to the courtclerk office queue forreview and approval

• Form data automati-cally generates anexparte protectiveorder and is routedto the judges queueto be reviewed andelectronically signed

• Local law enforce-ment can access anddownload the order,prior violations andcontinuances

Tybera

Norm Anderson

Vice President, Sales &

Marketing

801-226-2746 x106

[email protected]

Co

nta

Ct

fe

atu

re

SP

ro

du

Ct

CaSe ManageMent SourCeS


Eye on theFuture

February/March 2015


BY MICHAEL GROHS, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

all i

mag

es c

ourte

sy o

f W

olfV

isio

n

There was a time,says Fredric Lederer, director of theCenter for Legal & CourtTechnology (CLCT), that the chanceof having video evidence was small.Even one of the most famous eventsin U.S. history, the assassination ofPresident Kennedy, which occurredin a public arena in broad daylight,was captured on only a few feet offilm by a handful of people. Themost complete footage, shot byAbraham Zapruder, was a silent,color film that lasted for 26.6 secondsthat went on to become perhaps themost studied piece of film in history.It is the film most people associatewith visual evidence of the crime.

Now, says Lederer, video evi-dence is everywhere and will con-

tinue to proliferate. A huge amountof personal video recording takesplace. There are cameras every-where. Most people carry one intheir pocket. We are in an age ofsocial media. People commit a crimeand feel compelled to boast about iton Facebook. Google Glass isexpected to play a factor in court-room presentation. More and morepolice officers are going to be wear-ing body cameras. Next it will bedrones. “Courts will be flooded withvideo,” he forecasts.

At present, Audio/Video is in atransitional stage. December 31,2013 saw the “analog sunset,”which means that all newly pur-chased technologies connect only byHDMI, DVI, display port or otherfuture digital connections. MalcolmMacallum, Chief Technology Officer

at VIQ Solutions Inc., also pointsout “the use of AV capture isexploding in terms of evidence but isonly slowly being adopted in the AVcapture of court proceedings.” Hefurthers that the state of AV tech-nology has drastically improved overthe past two or three years and net-works are finally able to capture HDvideo at a “decent” rate acrossLANs. This technology did not evenexist a few years ago, but “currentlythe growth in AV evidence isexploding while the courts are stillcatching up. That technologicalchange is happening but requiresmassive upgrades in LANs, work-stations, and operating systems.Even the change from PCs to laptopor tablets is a large undertaking formost jurisdictions.”

The state of the AV technology

f-m 15 p22-26 aV_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:54 am Page 22



has greatly improved over the lastfew years, agrees John T. Wright,SVP, sales and business develop-ment, PESA, a company that part-ners with VIQ. He details a way thatHD video can be moved at anacceptable rate across LANs. “VIQ,for instance, offers a robust remoteAV monitor and capture feature thatmeans that evidence can be easilyattached, captured and securelyshared.”

The tight integration with thePESA XSTREAM family of productspermits the use of legacy camerasleading to a lower cost, simplerinstall with a significant upgrade incapability, Wright notes. If that evi-dence is required to be releasedpublicly or privately, it can now bedone with a secure web portal. This

is all new technology, he stresses.CLCT, also known as The

McGlothlin Courtroom, is “theworld’s most technologicallyadvanced trial and appellate court-room and classroom.” SaysLederer, there have been paralleladvancements in technology andits use of AV evidence. For civilcases it might be used as a “day inthe life” scenario to show whatsomeone’s life is like after an acci-dent or events such as a footballplayer being injured in a game.Even the term AV itself is evolvingto now include tablets and phones.In fact, this spring CLCT, located atWilliam & Mary Law School inWilliamsburg, Va., is planning anexperimental trial to examine howmuch courts can do using only

tablets and film rather than highertech equipment.

SKY’S THE LIMITSo how are courts utilizing this

technology? The answer is: for prac-tically everything. Currently manyare using technology such asTeleCourt for arraignments in whichan inmate can appear in court fromanother town or state. AV is used topresent evidence and testimony,video, animations, and imaged doc-uments. It is used to record andstore trial records. Macallum says,“Courts vary greatly in their use oftechnology. Some focus on stream-lining their workflow processes andput up public portals that providecourt information and in some casesallow for electronic forms filing.” He

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.


furthers that as a result of the prolif-eration of digital evidence, manycourts have been installing technol-ogy that can replay content.Forward-thinking courts with abudget have been implementing AVevidence capture and data manage-ment systems. “These types of sys-tems provide for easy integration tothe many legacy databases that existin the justice market. These types ofcourts realize that there is muchmore to the digital asset then justthe replay of that material.”

The United States District CourtSouthern District of New York cur-rently uses presentation technologyfor numerous tasks. The Court hasthe ability to provide video confer-encing in every courtroom as well astwo conference rooms. While priori-ty is given to matters pending in theDistrict, the Courtroom Technology/AV Services can be used to providetechnology services to other DistrictCourts should they be available. TheDistrict also uses ElectronicEvidence Presentation, which allowsfor the presentation of evidence viacomputer using a combination ofhardware and software such asSanction by Verdict Systems LLC.The hardware includes productssuch as document cameras, LCDProjectors, and numerous flat-panelmonitors. They also use AV forElectronic Court Recording (ECR),which captures a proceedingthrough digital or tape recordingrather than a court reporter. Mostcriminal cases in the courts are elec-tronically recorded; however, it isthe court’s policy that should aguilty plea of a felony be entered itis recorded by a court reporter.

GREATEREFFICIENCY

The New York State Court ofClaims’s Reference Guide states thatthe ability to present using AV tech-nology increases efficiency as well ascomprehension. It allows attorneys

February/March 2015


for

his

A WolfVision visualizeramplifies details in evidencefor the court to view.




to present documents, objects, pre-sentations, and photos. All visualpresentation can be annotated witha touch screen annotator available atboth the podium and the witnessbox, and printed in color and sub-mitted into evidence. At the heart ofthe courtroom is the podium, whichis located between the two counseltables.

In 2012, the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Montereyreleased the counsel guide for thepresentation technologies in whichthey announced the completion ofits five Salinas AV Courtrooms thathad been implemented with the goalof creating “an Audio/Visual envi-ronment which integrates the latestaudio, video and presentation tech-nologies to improve courtroom effi-ciency.” The courtrooms areequipped to support functions suchas the presentation of physical evi-dence, electronic evidence, telecon-ferencing, and audio amplification inorder to accommodate the stream ofnew digital evidence as well as exist-ing analog evidence. The systems aredesigned to be utilized by the casualuser, and each courtroom has beenequipped with an easy-to-use touchpanel system that makes it possibleto switch between multiple evidencesources at the touch of a screen. The

court provides a DVD, CD, and VHSplayer, a document camera, laptopVGA connection, stereo audio jackand PC audio and visual.

It is counsel who provides thelaptop or device, a trend that SteveBogart, IT manager and regionalsales manager at WolfVision, anAustrian-based manufacturer ofvisualizers, explains as BYOD. “Bringyour own device is really a buzzword being thrown around a lot.What it means is the ability to bringyour mobile device and present con-tent from it for all to see. We do thisthru our vSolution Connect applica-tion or by simply placing the deviceunder the camera. No special cablesrequired.” The Audio/Visual court-room in Monterey provides supportfor electronic audio and visual pre-sentation in the courtroom as well ascontrol over the entire system.Control of an AV Courtroom isaccomplished using iPad touch pan-els located at the bench, the clerk’sdesk, and counsel table. A simple setof controls allows counsel to select

display units such as a documentcamera or a DVD player, presentevidence to the bench, adjust thevolume, and preview evidencebefore submitting it.

One use New York StateCourtrooms have used AV for dur-ing the past decade has been for thepresentation of evidence. Amongthe technologies used to presentevidence are visualizers, such asthose manufactured by WolfVision,the only organization to haveannounced the development of a3D document camera for which,says Lederer, a jury in an experi-mental trial put on glasses and wereable to see a bloody brick with hairand a baseball bat presented as 3Devidence. Bogart points out, “Whenit comes to presentation of evi-dence, the clarity of the image onthe display is what's important forjurors, judges, and attorneys. Ifthere is distortion of the image orthe colors are not reproduced cor-rectly, they can lose the effect of theevidence being presented.”

The state of AV technology has drasticallyimproved over the past two or three years.

—MALCOLM MACALLUM


February/March 2015


TRENDING VISUAL In regard to the advancing quality

of AV, Macallum furthers, “One ofthe areas that VIQ/PESA firmlybelieves is becoming a major benefitis with digital content. This asset,with the addition of video evidenceand metadata is vast. The valuelocked up in that asset is enormousand can only be accessed with dataanalytics tools like those beingoffered by VIQ. Currently thesewould be qualitative analyses, butsoon they will offer predictive tools.The latest generation of video ana-lytic tools can provide much deeperinsights into the state of mind ofwitnesses, accused or others and canprovide invaluable help in determin-ing the truthfulness of testimony.With terabytes and terabytes of digi-tal asset and all the value locked up,this trend will explode as the powerof these tools is discovered.”

Expansion of AV use is certain.Macallum says, “As with evidence,the use of AV capture and digital assetmanagement systems will be

inevitable. The rate at which devicesof all sorts are being used, whethersmart phones or UAVs [unmannedaerial vehicles or drones] to captureevidence, which ends up in the courts,will eventually require that all courtsmove to advanced capture and digitalasset management systems that pro-vide security and auditability.”

This growth might require courtsto ponder a few things. While peo-ple in 1963 may have beenimpressed that the technology exist-ed for a man on the street to capturethe assassination of the President ofthe United States on an 8mm cam-era (then the top of the line), todaythe technology allows for a personwith minimal training to make a

complete motion picture. As Ledererwrote in his 2014 paper “Judging inthe Age of Technology”: “We havenot as of yet really had to deal withauthentication and metadata,” andthat even if evidence is admittedunder evidentiary rules, “it isunclear whether judges or jurors willor should believe that evidencegiven the possibility of technologicaltampering.”

In 2010, CLCT tried the simulat-ed case United States vs. Varic, aone-day experimental trial in whicha U.S. citizen was charged withattempted slavery. Among the con-clusions was that “it appears that itdoes not take a great amount of ITskill to fabricate persuasive false ITevidence” and “given adequatedefense experts, it could be exceed-ingly difficult to convict a defendantcharged with an IT crime.”

Macallum furthers, “Devices suchas smart phones and tablets arealready in use everywhere, not onlyby the general public, but also bypolice, doctors, first responders,insurance companies, and trans-portation to name a few. All thisdigital data can and does end upwhen a liability of dispute arises.Courts must be prepared and aremoving in that direction.”

In his paper, Lederer notes thatthe modern age brings with it a hugeamount of recorded images. “Cellphones and tablets (and soon per-sonal web cams and drones) ensurethat anything of interest results inpictures and audio-video recordings,or, in other words, evidence. Trialsand hearings will become far morevisual than ever before.” CT

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 solutionsthat will transform legacy data into current useable formats used with the lat-est solutions. In many cases there are tools available that will even enhancethe legacy data, for instance by providing better quality data.

High on the list of solutions are easy solutions for judges to use, as are sim-plified user interfaces that provide advanced features when needed but areeasy to use when first implementing. Another big trend is the movementtowards less complicated installations.

Partnerships such as that between VIQ and PESA combine the best in soft-ware with a powerful single cigar box-sized device that provides audio videocapture 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 PESAC58 (5-video, 8-audio channel) or CC22 (2-video and 2-audio channel) andVIQ software.

Small courts can use the C22 while larger courts simply replace the C22with a C58—everything else stays the same and now they have up to 6 videochannels (5 single and 1 quad) with 8 audio channels.

This clean and simple installation is what many courts want to implementespecially if those happen to require mobility or if they are looking to integrateAV conferencing into their records. —John T. Wright, PESA

“[Forward-thinking] courts realize thatthere is much more to the digital assetthen just the replay of that material.”

—MALCOLM MACALLUM




As court managers are acutelyaware, citizens do not always con-sider their courtroom civic duty inpositive terms. In fact, a basicGoogle search of the words “juryduty” turns up top results thatinclude “how to get out of juryduty.” The comments on the relatedarticle provide creative suggestionson what excuses will and will notwork. Thankfully, a few com-menters implore the reader to sim-ply complete his or her civic service.

Why is there such disdain for jury

duty? The reasons cited vary frominconvenience to financial concernsrelated to lost wages. These are realconcerns for some, but as the major-ity of those summoned will not beselected to sit on a jury, many timesa dislike of jury duty stems frommisinformation and fear. It is unfor-tunate that a first-time summonsrecipient may be greeted with nega-tive search results simply by seekingmore information about the juryselection process.

Over the years, courts have

responded to citizens’ concerns byworking to make the jury duty expe-rience more pleasant. A crucial firststep is better juror education. TheLos Angeles County Superior Courtoffers a “My Jury Duty Portal” ser-vice on its website in this effort.Those in receipt of a summons canlogin and complete juror orientationonline before ever setting foot in acourthouse. In addition, jurors haveaccess to an online FAQ and searchtools. An easy-to-navigate websitecan go a long way in addressing

BY EILEEN KORTE

Assembly Room Movies:

Vetted & VersatileEntertainment

imag

e co

urte

sy W

arne

r Bro

s.

F-m 15 p27-29 movie_ct 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 2/26/15 9:56 am Page 27

February/March 2015


juror concerns before they appear inthe courthouse, making jury duty amore positive experience for allinvolved.

Courts have also worked toaddress the inconveniences juryduty can impose. Citing LosAngeles County again, potentialjurors are required to call in eachday to see if they must appear attheir designated courthouse. Thisremoves the burden of excessive andunnecessary travel. During a weekof jury summons a juror may onlyhave to appear at the courthouseone day.

And yet, even with steps taken tomake the jury duty experience easierto navigate, waiting is an inevitablepart of the process. A potential juroris in a constant state of waiting,either to be called or in an assemblyroom. This is a common complaint,but luckily, even here improvementsare being made.

Waiting while being entertained isalways preferable to waiting whilebored. Increasingly, jury assemblyrooms are boasting technology.Along with the magazines of yester-year are now computers and wirelessInternet access. Televisions have

been commonplace for some time,and their versatility as a tool for edu-cation or entertainment has beenproven. Some courts combine televi-sions with the right audiovisualequipment to play pre-recorded ori-entation videos for potential jurors.Other courts are even playing moviesto entertain jurors while they wait.

Movies in the jury assembly roomare gaining steam as they allow forsupervised juror entertainment.While many potential jurors willarrive with their own electronicdevices, ranging from smart phonesto tablet computers, when coupledwith wireless Internet access it ispossible for jurors to view news sto-ries that may later conflict with theireligibility to sit on some juries. Thesame can be true for broadcast tele-vision played in the assembly room,and even some magazines andnewspapers. Movies and other pre-recorded programs allow the courtto control the media to which jurorshave access. Movies, whethershown from a DVD or streamedthrough popular services likeNetflix, do not pose a risk for com-mercial interruption or unexpectednews updates from local media out-

lets as broadcast television can.Movies are a simple and affordableamenity that can make the longhours spent waiting in an assemblyroom pass quickly.

The Reality ofCopyrightInfringement

If your courthouse is one of themany that currently plays movies inan assembly room, or would like to,it is important to be aware of copy-right concerns. As the primaryfunction of the courts is to upholdthe law, an inadvertent infringementof copyright within the courthouseitself would be truly unfortunate.

You may be aware that copy-righted motion pictures and otheraudiovisual programs that are avail-able for rental or purchase in anylegal format, such as DVDs or otherdigital formats, whether streamed ordownloaded, are intended for per-sonal, private use only. Viewings infacilities such as a courthouse orcommunity center require a publicperformance license.

As stated in Title 17 of the U.S.Copyright Act, copyright owners

imag

e co

urte

sy W

arne

r Bro

s.




control the use of their work. Thismeans that even casual use, such asan employee training session usinga short movie scene, or a one-time

screening of “12 Angry Men” in anassembly room, requires additionalpermission in the form of a publicperformance license. The provisionsof the Copyright Act apply equallyto for-profit and non-profit organi-

zations, including governmentagencies, even if the audience isclosed and no admission fee ischarged.

With fines for noncompliancestarting at $750 for each inadvertentinfringement and climbing to$150,000 for egregious violations,the potential liability is significant.The financial obligations of aninfringement, while steep, are stillsecondary to the ethical concerns ofa courthouse breaking federal law.

Copyright Compliance Process

Thankfully, ensuring copyrightcompliance within your court is asimple and affordable process.Annual facility-based licenses areavailable that will allow a court toshow an unlimited number ofmotion pictures and other programsfor one annual license fee. So called

“blanket” licenses provide coveragefor hundreds of motion picturecopyright holders under a singlelicense agreement. Once licensed,the court may obtain content fromany legal source whether purchased

via DVD or iTunes download, bor-rowed from a library or Redbox, orstreamed via services like Hulu,Amazon, or Netflix.

An annual public performancelicense allows the court to get cre-ative. Movies are a great way toentertain potential jurors and theycome with a plethora of program-ming options. Jurors serving in thewinter months might crack a smilewhen presented with movies set inwarmer climates such as “Pirates ofthe Caribbean,” “Jaws,” or “BlueHawaii.” Holiday films, ranging from“Hocus Pocus” to “Elf” to “NewYear’s Eve” are excellent choices forlighthearted fun. For broad appeal,you can never go wrong with aHollywood blockbuster like “Avatar,”“Titanic,” or “The Avengers.” Thepossibilities are endless, but makesure your court is copyright compli-ance before you press “play.”

Movies are proving to be the go-to for assembly room entertainmentas they allow the court to controlwhat information potential jurorscan access. At the same time,movies are easy to obtain, afford-able, and just plain fun.

Creating a welcoming and warmjury assembly experience is key tochanging the perception of the juryduty experience for the better.Court managers have the opportu-nity to leave jurors with a positivememory of their time spent in anassembly room. A pleasant experi-ence can transform the way thepublic views jury service, resulting inmore willing participants of the jus-tice system. CT

Eileen Korte is the licensing manag-er for the United States office of theMotion Picture Licensing Corporation(MPLC). For nine years, she hasworked with facilities ranging fromfederal government agencies and multi-national corporations to libraries andhealth care facilities to ensure compre-hensive copyright compliance.

imag

e co

urte

sy W

arne

r Bro

s.

Movies, whether shown from aDVD or streamed through popularservices like Netflix, do not pose arisk for commercial interruptionor unexpected news updates fromlocal media outlets as broadcasttelevision can.

Robert Duval in the film “The Judge.”

Movies are proving to be the go-to media forassembly room entertainment.


February/March 2015


BY DONNA ROGERS, EDITOR

Judicial discretion has—andalways will—play an impor-tant part in determiningpretrial release. Judges lookat objective criteria in addi-

tion to drawing on years of experi-ence in considering drug use, ties tocommunity, etc., in determining baildecisions.

Though this will continue to berelevant, says John Clark, seniorproject associate with the PretrialJustice Institute (PJI), over the pastfew years Courts are looking to cre-ate tools that scientifically validatethat data, to back up much of whatthey have believed all along.

States and counties are writingthis requirement into statutes, Clarkfurthers. And that act has been verysuccessful. In 2010, for example,

Mecklenburg County, N.C., imple-mented a pretrial risk assessmentinstrument and a research-basedmatrix of supervision conditionsmatched to risk levels. As a result,they reduced the average daily pop-ulation of the jail by 33 percent(according to a presentation by MarieVanNostrand, Ph.D., Using Evidence toAdvance Effective Justice RealignmentPretrial, California RealignmentConference, Sept. 21, 2011).

At issue is that each year 12 mil-lion people are booked into localjails across the country, the vastmajority for nonviolent crimes. Morethan 60% of inmates in our jailstoday are awaiting trial, and wespend more than $9 billion annuallyto incarcerate them, according toresearch by the Laura and JohnArnold Foundation (LJAF).

In order to reduce the cost ofincarceration, the goal of most crim-inal justice decision makers is todetain defendants who pose a riskto public safety–particularly thosewho appear likely to commit crimesof violence–and to release thosewho do not.

Yet, according to the LJAFResearch Summary (Nov. 2013): datacollected shows that “although thismay be our goal, it is far from being areality. Indeed, the research hasshown that defendants who are high-risk and/or violent are oftenreleased.”

In two large jurisdictions thatLJAF examined in detail, nearly halfof the highest-risk defendants werereleased pending trial. And, at theother end of the spectrum, its datashows that low-risk, non-violent

RiskAssessment

ToolsEach 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?

F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 11:04 AM Page 30



defendants are frequently detained.“Moreover,” it says, “soon-to-be-released LJAF research on low-riskdefendants shows that when theyare detained pretrial, they are morelikely to commit new crimes in boththe near and long term, more likelyto miss their day in court, more like-ly to be sentenced to jail and prison,and more likely to receive longersentences. In other words, failing toappropriately determine the level ofrisk that a defendant poses impactsfuture crime and violence, and car-ries enormous costs—both humanand financial.”

However, this writer found insome cases we are moving in the rightdirection. “Independent surveys havenoted that the use of scientifically-val-idated tools has become legislated inmost states, particularly when used

for court decisions,” says Kevin M.Williams, Ph.D., manager, productdevelopment, Clinical/Education/Public Safety Division of Multi-HealthSystems, Inc. “For instance, risk/needassessments must meet legal admissi-bility standards such as Daubert andFrye (see Archer et al., 2006). Onerecent survey reported that over 75%of forensic clinicians always or almostalways use a risk assessment toolwhen conducting adult risk assess-ments (Viljoen et al., 2010).

“More recently (2014), our ownresearch has confirmed that nearly75% of U.S. states and Canadianprovinces have adopted the use ofsome published risk/need assess-ment,” Williams furthers, “with theLSI-R and LS/CMI ranking as thetop two most frequently usedassessments in North America.”

Yet, the LJAF research summary,which focused specifically on thepretrial period, points out that over90% of jurisdictions do not use anytype of formal risk assessment tools.But it continues: “…although lessthan 10% of jurisdictions use datadriven pretrial risk assessments,these jurisdictions have been able tospend less on pretrial incarceration,while at the same time enhancingpublic safety.”

It goes on to state: “From thebeginning, we believed that an easy-to-use, data-driven risk assessmentcould greatly assist judges in deter-mining whether to release or detaindefendants who appear before them.And that this could be transformative.In particular, we believed that switch-ing from a system based solely oninstinct and experience to one in


which judges have access to scientif-ic, objective risk assessment toolscould further our central goals ofincreasing public safety, reducingcrime, and making the most effective,fair, and efficient use of publicresources. We understood thatjudges already consider many of themost critical factors related to adefendant’s risk of committing a newcrime or failing to return to court;however, we also knew that it isextremely difficult for judges to knowhow to accurately and objectivelyweigh these factors, or to knowwhich factors, when combined withone another, increase the risk of fail-ure exponentially.”

Making this determination can attimes be confusing with conflictinginformation available to decisionmakers, concurs PJI. According to itsprimer “Risk Assessment 101”:“Historically, personal experience,professional judgment, confusingstatutes, and monetary charge-basedbail schedules have guided criticalbail decisions. However, in the lastdecade, communities around thecountry have demonstrated that the

decision to release or detain a defen-dant pretrial can be improved byassessing the defendants’ risk.”

One validation study of theKentucky Pretrial Risk AssessmentInstrument, states PJI, demonstratesthat rates of pretrial failure were loweven for those considered “high risk.”Those defendants deemed “low risk”had a failure to appear (FTA) rate anda pretrial rearrest rate of “about 6%,”while those determined to be “highrisk” had an “11% FTA rate and a17% rearrest awaiting trial rate.”

According to PJI, the pre-trial riskassessment instrument collects moretargeted data than other risk/needassessments and contains factorsthat are associated with increasedchances of only two types of failureduring a short period of time: failureto appear for all court hearings andrearrest on a new charge.

These instruments have beenproven to be highly effective in theirability to predict rates of success onpretrial release (return to court andno new arrests while on release). Acase in point is the Virginia RiskAssessment Instrument. A study of

that instrument showed its efficacy bydemonstrating that low-risk individu-als had a 92.9% success rate, average-risk individuals had an 82.2% successrate, and high-risk individuals had a68% success rate, reports PJI.

One caveat in using pretrialscreenings, however, is an ethicalone, says Bret White, Ph.D., MSW,and CEO of Abel Screening. AbelAssessments are used to determinesexual interest in adults toward chil-dren and juveniles toward juveniles atall points throughout a defendant’stime in the criminal justice system.

He notes that the tool should beused only by a licensed mental healthprofessional and should be used notto determine guilt or innocence but todetermine treatment. If the client is“disclosive about their history,” inpretrial screening, they need to “pro-tect themselves from incrimination.”The clinician must figure out how touse the information in the best inter-est of the client, he stresses, e.g., itcould be used in a plea bargain agree-ment where the client already had aconviction and both attorneys agreethat the client needs to be open.


February/March 2015


Does Mental HealthFactor in RiskAssessment?

At the outset of planning thisstory, CF editors wondered ifoffenders’ mental health was a fac-tor in pretrial risk and risk assess-ments. The majority of practitionersthis writer spoke with respondedthat is not the case. PJI’s Clarkstates: “There is no research thatpoints to [state of mental health] infailure to report.”

Winnie Ore, senior program spe-cialist with the National Council onCrime and Delinquency (NCCD), anorganization that has developed itsown risk assessment tools, reportsthat neither of its instruments con-tain psychological assessments.

The NCCD’s CorrectionalAssessment and Intervention System(CAIS) and Juvenile Assessment andIntervention System (JAIS) are mul-tidimensional assessment and super-vision systems that include an actu-arial risk assessment and a compre-hensive assessment of needs, shesays. These assessments are provid-ed within the context of a clinicalevaluation of what drives an offend-er’s delinquent/criminal behaviors,along with recommended supervi-sion strategies and programs thatreflect the individual’s attitudes,capacities and learning style.

NCCD created CAIS and JAIS bycombining three assessments—a riskassessment, a needs assessment, andStrategies for Supervision—andwere designed to assist workers toeffectively and efficiently superviseoffenders in both institutional set-tings and the community, she notes.

Furthermore, HMS’ Williams alsoconcurs that their tool does notdirectly assess mental health issuesbut instead includes items thatincorporate results from other rele-vant assessments or diagnoses. Inthis way, LS/CMI raters do not needto be trained clinical psychologiststo use the instrument. “This is a

critical feature because the majority ofLS/CMI raters are probation/ paroleofficers, correctional employees, etc.who do not and are not expected tohave this level of training.”

He furthers that there is abun-dant place for those assessing todetect and note specific mentalhealth issues that may require refer-ral to a mental health professional.

Carol Fisler, director of mentalhealth court programs, Center forCourt Innovation, in New York City,agrees. “Mental illness is not in andof itself a significant risk factor forreoffending.” She says that while“perhaps 40%” of those incarceratedat Rikers have mental issues, there isa huge disparity in their behavior.“You have just incredible hetero-geneity with persons with mental ill-nesses,” she said last fall in a paneldiscussion on "BK Live" on BrooklynIndependent Media.

“A perception among the generalpublic is that every mentally ill per-son is dangerous and should beincarcerated,” she says. “Some canbe floridly psychotic but not neces-sarily at high risk of reoffending.Others might be quite stable butbased on past history and based onother known risk factors could havea very high rate of reoffending....”

New York City Task Force

The recommendation inDecember 2014 of New York CityMayor Bill Di Blasio’s $130 millionBehavioral Health–Criminal JusticeTask Force was to help those withserious mental illness and drugabuse by focusing in on using scien-tifically validated risk assessmenttools. Says CCI’s Fisler, the goal isnot to necessarily look at the risk ofviolence, which is one issue, but also“really to focus in on what’s the riskthat a person is going to reoffend.”

The Center for Court Innovation,founded over 20 years ago as a pub-lic/private partnership between theNew York State Unified Court

System and the Fund for the City ofNew York, does research anddemonstration projects in the NewYork City area.

One such project is the BrooklynJustice Initiatives. Begun in Novem-ber 2013, BJI is a supervised misde-meanor release, bail reform programin New York City. At issue, accordingto its 2014 Annual Report: “Over 75percent of non-felony bail cases inNew York City involve bail amountsof $1,000 or less—and yet in the vastmajority of cases (65 percent), defen-dants are unable to post that amount.These individuals have been foundguilty of no crime—indeed, approxi-mately 25 percent of non-felonydefendants detained pre-trial will endup having their cases dismissed.”

Using basic eligibility criteria, allthose arrested on misdemeanorcharges are eligible, says Jessica Kay,BJI project director. In its first year ofoperation, Brooklyn Justice Initiativesenrolled over 200 participants in itspretrial supervised release program,most of them young men of color.Ensuring participants remain in thecommunity and avoid detentionwhile their case is pending is the pri-mary goal of the program. During itsfirst year of operation, 85 percent ofdefendants enrolled in the programachieved this goal.

They achieve this high rate, shesays, by staying in contact in any waythey can. Once released to the pro-gram in the courthouse staff get intouch with people on their contactlist—a neighbor and grandmother,anyone that has any influence onthem, she tells us. Also utilized areautomated check-in phone calls andin-person check-in, the frequency ofcontact depending on their risk level.And BJI uses a validated tool, shenotes, to determine what their needsmay be, so that they can be connect-ed to services on a voluntary basis.They get reminded of court dates,which can be overwhelming, or assistwith carfare. If they miss a phone callor in-person visit, we give them a

WWW.COURTSTODAY.COM 33



24-hour grace period, she says. Andbefore BJI reports noncompliance tothe court, they reach out to theirdefense attorney enlisting their help.“This is in lieu of bail, we need to doeverything we can possibly do to getthem back to court,” Kay underscores.

In its first full year the program’ssuccess was palpable. “We had 214enrolled cases, 91% were flagged asHigh Risk FTA [failure to appear] ornot recommended for release,” shesays. “[Overall] 85% of the closedcases avoided pretrial detention.”

Red Hook SuccessAnother positive story under the

CCI umbrella is the Red HookCommunity Justice Center inBrooklyn, NY. Launched in June 2000,

it is the nation's first multi-jurisdic-tional community court. It is unusualin that a single judge hears criminaland family court cases. “It treats peo-ple organically—they are going tomany courts that really are interrelat-ed—and deals more holistically withthem,” says Julian Adler, director.

Red Hook, though part of the cityof New York, is geographically isolat-ed—no subway connects with it, hedetails, and 70% live in the Red HookHouses. “How could you not do hous-ing Court?” he points out. Its FamilyCourt also holds cases (juvenile delin-quency only).

The Red Hook judge has an arrayof sanctions and services at his dis-posal. These include communityrestitution projects, short-term psy-cho-educational groups, and long-term treatment (e.g., drug treatment,mental health treatment, and trau-ma-focused psychotherapy). Forjuveniles the project has a resourcecenter that offers a GED program,arts and youth programming.

Red Hook also has an onsite clinicstaffed by social service professionalswho use trauma- and evidence-informed approaches to assess andconnect individuals to appropriateservices. Those arrestees deemedappropriate are given a comprehen-sive assessment within the 24 hoursbefore arraignment (New York has a24-hour arraignment statute). “Thedistinction is—and many courts(especially problem solving courts) docomprehensive assessments—thoughnot within 24 hours,” says Adler.

Red Hook's ability to conduct fullassessments within 24 hours postarrest inspired a program called theMAP project (for misdemeanorassessment program, though it worksfor felonies too)... But, Adler explains,MAP is created for court environ-ments where the 24-hour full assess-ment is not feasible. It enlightens thecourt if the offender needs in- or out-patient care, detox, trauma-informedcare, etc., he says, noting that gettinga full assessment before arraignmentis “incredibly powerful.”

An IndependentEvaluation

In 2013 the National Center forState Courts completed an indepen-dent evaluation of the Red HookJustice Center. When research beganin 2010 it used data from 2008 inorder to allow a minimum follow-upperiod of two years. According tothe report: “The Justice Centerincreased the use of alternative sen-tences: 78 percent of offendersreceived community service or socialservice sanctions, compared with 22percent among comparable casesprocessed at the regular criminalcourthouse in Brooklyn. The JusticeCenter reduced the number ofoffenders receiving jail sentences by35 percent.”

In addition, there were significantdifferences in how the Justice Centerused jail compared to the downtowncourthouse. “At Red Hook, almostno defendants (1 percent) receivedjail at arraignment.” Instead, jail wasreserved as a “secondary” sanction,for offenders who were noncompli-ant with their initial community orsocial service sentences.

“Adult defendants handled at theJustice Center were 10 percent lesslikely to commit new crimes thanoffenders who were processed in atraditional courthouse; juveniledefendants were 20 percent less like-ly to re-offend. Further analysis indi-cated that these differences weresustained well beyond the primarytwo-year follow-up period.”

For each of the 3,210 adult mis-demeanor defendants arraigned atthe Justice Center in 2008, theNCSC study concluded that taxpay-ers realized “an estimated savings of$4,756 per defendant in avoided vic-timization costs relative to similarcases processed in a traditional mis-demeanor court—a total of $15 mil-lion in avoided victimization costs.”And after factoring the upfront costsof operating the Justice Center,“total resource savings in 2008 werenearly $7 million.” CT


February/March 2015

AD I N DEX COMPANY PAGE NO.

This advertisers index is provided as a serviceto our readers only. The publisher does not

assume liability for errors or omissions.

APPA...................................11Carter Goble Lee ................7Computing System

Innovations.....................17CourtView..........................14FTR Limited ........................5Infax .....................................2Journal Technologies .......15Mixnet ................................19StunCuff

Enterprises, Inc. ...............4Thermo Fisher

Scientific .........................13Thomson Reuters.............36Tyler Technologies ...........35Xerox....................................9

F-M 15 p30-34 RISK_CT 2/05 p020-21 Best Build 3/4/15 1:36 PM Page 34



Date post:	08-Apr-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	criminal-justice-media-inc
View:	216 times
Download:	3 times

February / March 2015

Documents