There was an article this morning about a court in Austin conducting possibly the first criminal jury trial in the country over the internet, with all the jurors at home. Apparently it went OK, but lawyers are complaining that the defendant was deprived of her rights - right to confront her accusers, right to confer with her attorney during the trial, and that the jurors couldn't assess her body language. She lost.

Maybe the first of many to follow.

Her rights could only be deprived if she lost. It is too popular with judges, internet trials will make constitutional muster.

Now that would seem to me to open all kinds of cans of worms, especially in a high-stakes trial. Are they sending a bailiff or marshal to every participant‘s house?

How can they assess that witnesses and jurors are on the level? There could be a wise guy with a gun behind the camera.

On the bright side, protecting witnesses would be easier. My first Zoom tele-visit with my doctor was like that. He didn‘t have the lighting thing figured out and looked like one of these people in the witness protection program they interview for mob documentaries on TV; all you could see was his silhouette in front of bright blinds

Still waiting on a contested traffic ticket trial from December '19.

I suspect as time goes on, all of the constitutional wrinkles will be ironed out. The article I read said that the jurors' deliberations took place on a high security network. It also mentioned that during the trial, one of the jurors had a cat that kept walking in front of the camera. It didn't say how the voir dire was conducted. It certainly would be more convenient for the jurors. Nothing more boring than sitting around in some jury room all day waiting to find out if you have been selected or not.

The most ridiculous case I was called for was a jury trial for some guy (who didn't speak English) who was accused of having an unlicensed dog. Honest, I couldn't believe how such a case ever got to a jury trial. I didn't get selected, but if I had been, I would have voted not guilty just out of spite for a system that allowed such a travesty.

Some financial, accounting and legal firms I know about have categorically forbidden zoom meetings for security reasons. Apparently it is too easy to hack into the virtual meeting with existing security provisions, and the environment of each participant is completely un-secured. As long as a jury trial is public a virtual meeting trial should be workable, but the minute an officious judge wants a closed trial, in effect clearing the courtroom of everyone but participants, a zoom meeting trial would come unwound. There are too many judges and prosecutors that want their proceedings secret to protect their lofty standing. The Supreme Court does it.

Just got out of a local Bench/Bar meeting here in Kansas. Jury trials will still be in person here, if and when we can get back to doing them, at least criminal ones. Jury selection will be conducted in a large conference area to allow social distancing. Masks are mandatory in the Courtroom and the jury will deliberate in the Courtroom. All hearings right now, and the trials will be broadcast on Youtube to ensure the defendant has a public trial. Only the witness, jury, counsel, baliff, defendant judge and court reporter allowed in the courtroom.

Not looking forward to it. I can imagine most jurors won't want to be there and I sure as heck wouldn't want to be a defendant with a PO'd jury. The OP's post makes me believe the Defendant had to waive the right to confrontation etc. Just doing Zoom hearing probable cause hearings is bad, cant imagine doing a trial that way.

Jurors by Zoom. Oh yeah, Zoom with the court on one screen while surfing the Web for stuff about the trial on the other. That should help the cause of justice. Perfect!

__________________
Release the Kraken

Ain't gonna happen in my court. Book it.

__________________
Forum consigliere

A judge in the county I worked before told "difficult" inmates that if they don't behave in court he will excuse them and the trial will continue with them on a tv at the jail. I've never seen it happening but he mentioned it to several people over the time I was working there.

__________________
Jorge

I think that practice goes back to at least the Manson family trial in 1970, where disruptive behavior was the defendants’ main strategy.

But you still have everybody in a controlled setting. If people are dialing in from home, not so much.

Indeed, I just realized that they'll be home....

Nah, that's stupid and I don't think any reasonable person would agree to that. I'm sure we'll see an appeal and plenty of case law in the future...

__________________
Jorge