Court Reports,
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TECHNICAL SERVICES NC~L I5 F 8733 COURT TECHNOLOGY REPORTS,/ 1990 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsbw;yirginia 23187-8798 Nationa! Cer;?er Stago CQWY~S 0 Copyright 1991 by the National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-107-0 NCSC Publication No. R-124 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ...................................................................... v Introduction ............................................................................ vii Vermont District Court Automation Barre District Court, Washington Circuit ................................................. 1 FORECOURT Case Management System Relational Semantics, Inc. This is a Unix-based application with unique features for entering, searching for, and retrieving data. The system uses a court-defined event flow table to display the next logical event. Housing Court Information System (HCIS) ................................................. 33 State of New York, Unified Court System Office of Court Administration This system processes and manages hundreds of thousands of landlordltenant disputes filed in the housing part of the Civil Court of New York City. Wyoming Statewide Court Automation Project ............................................. 55 Wyoming Courts of Limited Jurisdiction Supreme Court of Wyoming ECS, Inc. This is a PC-based LAN system for calendaring and case management. It features self-docketing and identiftcation of scheduling conflicts. The Wyoming Supreme Court supports a statewide training center. Alabama State Judicial Information System, Juvenile System ................................ 89 Administrative Office of the Courts Montgomery, Alabama The latest major SJlS application reflects the AOC's current approach to mainframe applications from planning, analytical, and technical perspectives. Own Reco nizance Management System (ORMS) ........................................... 111 PretriaP Services Division, Los Angeles County Superior Court Systemhouse, Inc. This system improves quality of services through on-line access to case information, promoting uniform investigation procedures, balancing staff work load, and providing access to accurate and timely information. iii Prerecorded Videotaped Trials ............................................................ 133 Erie County Common Pleas Court, General Division Sandusky, Ohio Delay reduction, lower litigation costs, more efficient use of judicial resources, and reduced jury costs are some of the benefits of this application of video technology. Computerized Information Center for Pro Se Access ........................................ 141 Colorado State Judicial Department Division of Planning and Analysis The incorporation of graphics and text using touch-screen technology and a synchronized laser disk audio track (English and Spanish) provides information to pro se litigants in small-claims and child support matters. JuryManagementSystem ................................................................ 157 22nd Judicial Circuit, Washtenaw County, Michigan Vanguard Management and Information Systems, Inc. This system supports the one-daylone-trial scheme and its variants and accepts tape downloading or data transfer from a single source or multiple sources. District Court Automation Software (DCAS) ................................................ 181 District Court of Maryland Annapolis, Maryland This is an integrated, decentralized approach using PCs as workstations, reducing central mainframe computer inputloutput operations. The system uses bar coding for data entry and case management. iv Acknowledgments These reports were developed under a grant from the State Justice Institute. Points of view expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) gratefully acknowledges the professional contribution and support of the members of the NCSC Systems Advisory Committee for their guidance and direction during this project. Mr. K. Kent Batty Honorable Michael J. CYMalley Executive Ad minis trator Judge Detroit, Michigan Court of Common Pleas Mr. Alan Carlson Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Manager, Trial Court Special Projects Honorable Charles H. Pelton San Francisco, California Judge of the District Court Ms. Mary Campbell McQueen Clinton, Iowa State Court Administrator Honorable David L. Phares State of Washington Justice of the Peace Olympia, Washington Maricopa County Chandler, Arizona National Center for State Courts Project Staff This project has been conducted under the direction of Dr. Geoff Gallas Ms. Peggy Walsh Vice President, Research and Technical Sm*ces Staff Associate Mr. Lawrence P. Webster Mr. Doug Walker Director of Technical Sem'ces Senior Staff Associate Mr. Thomas G. Dibble Ms. Maureen H. Aveno Senior Staff Associate NCSC ConsuIfanf Ms. Cheryl H. Letchworth Mr. Ronald Jayne Project Director NCSC Consultant Mr. Kevin P. Kilpatrick Ms. Patricia Maddox Staff Associate Project Support Publication Service Staff Ms. Anne Kelly Ms. Hisako Sayers Editor Graphic Artist Mr. Charles F. Campbell Ms. Mary L. McCall Associate Ed itor Production Coordinator Ms. Stevalynn Adam Art Director V Introduction THE STATE COURTS COMMUNITY NEEDS A that these systems represent the best efforts of centralized resource for information concerning state and local courts, it is not possible to perform the dynamic and evolving field of technology. a comprehensive comparison with other outstand- This need will expand in the 1990s as courts face ing systems in other locations. We hope that the productivity problems and are forced to automate information will benefit courts considering similar their recordkeeping and paper-flow processes, technology. improve staff efficiency, and communicate effec- Court Technology Reports, 1990, reviews nine tively with other government agencies. automated systems. For the first time, the Reports In response to this need, the National Center goes beyond case management systems to exam- for State Courts has developed a multi-tiered ine other uses of technology, such as touch screens technology program that provides research, that provide routine procedural information to pro information, technical assistance, and education to se litigants, the use of video to prerecord trials, a courts. This is accomplished through national- statewide local area and wide area network scope research projects, the Institute for Court system, and a Unix-based court application. Management’s technology curriculum, and the direct technical assistance provided by the Na- System Review Procedures tional Center’s regional offices. The National Center, through continued In response to our invitation to share successful support from the State Justice Institute (SJI), is applications of technology, courts nominate pleased to present the 1990 edition of the Court projects for review. Nominations include a brief Technology Reports. This edition is the third of a description of the technology, the hardware and series in which applicationsof technology, nomi- operating environment, how the technology has nated by courts, are reviewed. Each review affected the court, and its potential benefit to other discusses a technology project from inception courts. Technical Services staff review each through implementation and considers the nomination, taking into consideration the length project’s effects on court operations. of time the technology has been in use, the num- The Court Technology Reports examines suc- ber of court installations, the type of technology, cessful projects, thus providing courts with more and the benefits the court has realized. A prelimi- complete informationabout promising systems. It nary selection is presented to the systems advisory describes how each project was developed, committee for review. funded, and implemented; what the automated Site visits are scheduled for selected courts. system can do; the type of hardware and software Before visiting the site, NCSC project staff review required; the type of documentation available; and all supporting material provided by the site, the kind of training program used. including system design documents, user and Inclusion of systems in the Court Technology technical documentation, and articles and reports Reports does not constitute an endorsement, written about the technology. During the site certification, or representation that they meet any visit, interviews with judges, clerks, system standards other than that they have proven developers, and others determine how the tech- helpful to the nominating court. While we hope nology has affected court operations. Project staff vii also observe a detailed demonstration of the Own Recognizance Management System, system. Los Angeles County The system improves the quality of services Report Format through on-line access to case information, promoting uniform investigation procedures, All reviews follow the same format. An overview balancing staff work load, and providing checklist provides a quick reference about the access to accurate and timely information. system or technology: features and functions, hardware and software requirements, Prerecorded Videotaped Trials, Erie County postimplementation support, and available Common Pleas Court documentation. The body of each review contains Delay reduction, lower litigation costs, more a brief history of the system’s development; court efficient