Canadian Court Tech Forum 2012 and CLCT Court Audio Visual Certification Training Announced

Two court technology events are announced.

This and That in Court Tech – August, 2012

News about US Federal Court Cameras Pilot, CITOC E-Filing Webinar, Why Jurors Go Online, Courts and Big Data, and some resources for planning for Microsoft Windows 8

NJ Governor vetoes bill to help pay for court technology & indigent defense; becomes 2nd state governor to veto court technology bills this year

Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel

Earlier this week NJ Governor Chris Christie's veto of AB 763, a bill that would among other things raise various court fees to help pay for court technology, was delivered to the Assembly. The governor's veto occurred in late June but wasn't filed until July 30. The bill, as approved by the legislature, is similar to one vetoed by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley earlier this year and later overridden.

AB 763 provides the Supreme Court may, subject to limitations provided in the bill, adopt Rules of Court to revise or supplement filing fees and other statutory fees payable to the court for the sole purpose of funding: (1) the development, maintenance, and administration of a “Statewide digital e-court information system,” that incorporates electronic filing, service of process, document and case management, financial management, and public access to digital court records; and (2) Legal Services of New Jersey.

The veto now goes back to the Assembly. Its prospects are unclear: the original version passed the Assembly on March 2012 on a 64-14 vote. The Senate passed its version 24-11, shy of the 27 votes needed to override. The Assembly then re-passed the Senate amended version, but on a 48-30 vote; it would have 52 votes in the Assembly to override.

State Court Case Management System Acquisition Strategies

By Tom C. Clarke, National Center for State Courts

It is a truism of American courts that no state is exactly like another.  This is one of many reasons why state court systems have a difficult time comparing themselves to ostensible peer states.  Publications like NCSC’s State Court Organization try to compare apples to apples along multiple dimensions, but it remains a mostly intractable problem.

Court Case Management Systems 2012 Part 2: Does it help you do your work?

The second in a series of articles on court case management systems.

Video: Texas State Court Administrator testifies before House committee on e-filing in the state

Cross-posted at Gavel to Gavel

At this point, at least some courts in nearly every U.S. state have some form of e-filing of court documents (details can be found at the National Center for State Court's e-filing Resource Guide), including Texas. That state's system was the subject of an interim meeting of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence.

More on PDF

The PDF document file format is confusing to many because it can do so much. This post provides a list of resources that may help.

The "Flavors" of PDF

PDF has many different capabilities that can be confusing.  This article explains some of them.

This and That in Court Tech - July 2012

 E-courts education program, Canadian court tech conference, SJI assists Minnesota self-represented E-filing, mandatory E-filing in Utah and Florida, and Pennsylvania tweets court rules.

South Carolina legislature overrides governor, allows CJ to set e-filing fees to pay for court technology

Cross-posted at Gavel to Gavel

I mentioned two weeks ago the e-filing fees situation in South Carolina. In sum, the legislature unanimously adopted HB 4821, which would have allowed the state's chief justice to set an e-filing fee to pay for court technology

for filing court documents by electronic means from an integrated electronic filing (e-filing) system owned and operated by the South Carolina Judicial Department in an amount set by the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court and all fees must be remitted to the South Carolina Judicial Department to be dedicated to the support of court technology

Despite the legislature's unanimity, the governor vetoed the bill, arguing no "branch of government should be provided with such comprehensive, unilateral authority to impose fees without regulatory or other comparable review." The South Carolina legislature has now voted to override the governor's veto: 93-14 in the House and 39-3 in the Senate.