More Utah Justice Court Records Available Online

A press release from the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts issued on September 3, 2008 announces:
The Administrative Office of the Courts has announced the addition of 40 justice courts to the state court’s XChange service. XChange is a database of court case information that is available publicly for a monthly fee. 
The XChange service provides case information—referred to as the court docket—and includes information such as when and what documents have been filed in the case, when and what hearings have been held or are scheduled in the case, when and what judgments have been entered in the case, and the outcome of completed cases. Justice courts hear primarily class B and C misdemeanors, infractions, and small claims cases.

“With the addition of justice courts to the XChange service, court users have access to case information in one central location,” said Utah State Court Administrator Dan Becker. Prior to the database expansion, accessing Justice Court case information required court users to contact each individual Justice Court.

The XChange database is used daily by government agencies, law enforcement, title companies, law firms, media outlets, and others to track the status of court cases. District Court case information has been available through the XChange service for more than 10 years. During the 2008 Legislative Session, a law was enacted that requires all justice courts to use a common case management system by the year 2011. As each Justice Court converts to the court’s common case management system, the XChange service will automatically add that court’s case information."

For more information, go to www.utcourts.gov.

Request for Comment on Proposed CourTools Standard

The Joint Technology Committee (JTC) of the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) and the National Association for Court Management (NACM) solicits review of, and comments on proposed standards for CourTools Information Exchanges
CourTools Information Exchanges

CourTools is a set of ten trial court performance measures developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to provide court managers a balanced perspective on court operations.  The NCSC subsequently developed Global Information Exchange Package Documentation sets (IEPD’s) representing standards for uploading data relating to specific CourTools measures.  IEPD’s have been developed for four of the ten CourTools measures.  For each CourTools measure, two separate IEPD’s were developed to share data between local courts and a state authority (Stage 1) and between the state authority and a national authority (Stage 2).  The CourTools IEPD’s may be downloaded from the NCSC website at:

http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/CourTools/tcmp_courttools.htm

Direct download links for each IEPD (no longer valid - 12/2/10):

• Measure 2 – Clearance Rates, Stage 1
• Measure 2 – Clearance Rates, Stage 2
• Measure 3 – Time to Disposition, Stage 1
• Measure 3 – Time to Disposition, Stage 2
• Measure 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseload, Stage 1
• Measure 4 – Age of Active Pending Caseload, Stage 2
• Measure 5 – Trial Date Certainty, Stage 1
• Measure 5 – Trial Date Certainty, Stage 2
  

Please direct any comments regarding the proposed standard(s) to NCSC via electronic mail to Paul Embley (pembley@ncsc.org).

The review period for the above proposed standard(s) will end October 31, 2008.  Comments regarding a “proposed standard” must be received by the end of the review period to assure consideration in advance of JTC’s decision on approval as a “recommended standard”.

Access to Justice Training Set

Rachel Medina at the Center for Access to Justice and Technology has announce they will be holding online training.

*New User Training intended for new users and those that would like a refresher on the basics is scheduled for September 11th.

*Advanced Training is scheduled for September 18th.

For more information see the A2J Author Blog or contact:

Rachel R Medina
Manager
Center for Access to Justice & Technology
Chicago-Kent College of Law

NIEM Posts Documents for Review

NIEM User Guide and High-Level Version Architecture (HLVA) Posted for Public Comment
The NIEM User Guide and High-Level Version Architecture (HLVA) document have been posted to the NIEM web site on the "Downloads" page under the "Technical Documents" section. Each document is open for a public review period which ends September 15, 2008.

NIEM User Guide

NIEM High-Level Version Architecture

NIEM is the National Information Exchange Model, is a partnership of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. It is designed to develop, disseminate and support enterprise-wide information exchange standards and processes that can enable jurisdictions to effectively share critical information in emergency situations, as well as support the day-to-day operations of agencies throughout the nation.

Court Generated Documents

Now that everyone uses either word processing software or has the case management system create standard documents electronically, why are most courts only storing the data on paper in the paper file? In my experience there is continually an issue in court case management systems as to new data fields that must be added to either track new things for statistical information or to clarify information such as judgments, sentencing, or orders. So since electronic storage is so very cheap today, why aren't all court electronic generated documents being automatically saved in the court's system?

Is there an issue as to whether the electronic copy is the original or true copy? If so, then the documents should be printed to PDF.

Is there an issue that either a conforming or judge's signature is not affixed to the document? Then a digital signature and file stamp (or watermark) can be used.

Is there an issue regarding control? If so then digital rights management and encryption should be examined as a possible solution.

The point of this is that I believe a case management system should be focused on what its name says, managing cases. Documents can then be appropriately used, searched, and hopefully tagged to supplement the case management process and in the near future be applied for judicial research and use.

Next time, I'll write about self-docketing documents.

Testing Virtual Machines

Recently I received a new laptop computer.  The new laptop is very nice with a wide-format screen, 2 gigabytes of RAM, and a big 160 gigabyte hard drive.  And since my old laptop was still doing fine I decided it was time to experiment with Virtual Machine (VM) software.  For those who might not have kept up on VM technology, simply said it is software that lets one emulate various computer operating systems such as Microsoft Vista or XP, Linux, UNIX, or even MS-DOS on a host computer.  In other words, one creates a “virtual” computer using software within a host system.  For a much more complete explanation of VM software see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine

I’ve been testing Sun’s virtual machine software called VirtualBox.  But of course there are many other options to explore such as industry leader VMware as well as Microsoft’s Virtual PC 2007 software.  Apple Mac users have Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion to choose from.  An excellent list of different VM software is posted on Wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_machines

I have posted a picture here to show you that I was able to load MSDOS, OpenSUSE Linux, and Vista on top of the installed Windows XP on my laptop.  Now to be realistic, I would need more RAM (chip) memory in my machine if I were to run all of these are the same time.  But it does seem to do the job quite nicely, and has the advantage of being free to use.  I thought you might enjoy the picture.

Now why are VM’s useful?  I can think of three reasons off the top of my head.  First, the obvious one is if there is a particular piece of software that only available on a particular operating system (OS), one can install that OS (legally licensed of course just like my Vista software) and then install the application.

Second, the ability to run older software programs to retrieve data could be particularly useful.  One might notice in the picture, my old CMS from the 80’s in Arizona is running in the MS-DOS window.  Therefore, if I had a court’s data from that system, I could run search and run reports without needing to convert the data.  It is interesting to note that there is as project is building VMs for older minicomputer systems of the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMH



A third reason is to be able to test software on different applications in “clean” OS environments.  One can also emulate client / server networks or browser / server networks within a single machine.  Many VM’s have the ability to create “snapshots” of a system that allows a baseline configuration from which new software or configurations can be tested.  And if the approach doesn’t work; no problem, delete it and try again.  In the near future I am going to build a Linux client working with a Microsoft server to learn the best way to configure such a system.

Using VM?  Let us know and we’ll post your story.

Court Technology Bulletin Archive Online

Last week we received welcome news that our NCSC Knowledge and Information Services team had imaged all of the printed issues of the Court Technology Bulletin in PDF files. The Bulletin was issued in printed format from 1989 to 2003. It is interesting to see how technology has changed and improved over that time span. You can also see how good or bad I was at making technology trend predictions in my articles about the huge COMDEX computer expositions . The index to the CTB issues is located at: http://www.ncsconline.org/d_tech/archive/Bulletin/bulletinarchive.htm

US Federal Court Test Online Digital Audio Recordings

The June, 2008 edition of The Third Branch newsletter from the US Federal Courts contains an article titled: Pilot Project Update: Digital Audio Recordings Online. The article explains: quotIn a pilot project that began last August, five federal courts are docketing some digital audio recordings to Case Management/Electronic Case Files CM/ECF systems to make the audio files available in the same way written files have long been available on the Internet. The three other courtsnbsp are the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Maine, and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama.quot The article also notes: quotA major concern is assuring that personal information including Social Security and financial account numbers, dates of birth, and names of minor childrennot be available on any online digital audio recording. The Judiciary39s privacy policy restricts publication of such information. Each of the pilot courts warns lawyers and litigants in a variety of ways that they can, and should, request that recorded proceedings that include information covered by the privacy policy, or other sensitive matters, not be posted.

US Virgin Islands Court Issues RFP

The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has issued a Request for Proposal RFP that seeks an Appellate Case Management solution that incorporates Efiling and Document Management capabilities. The RFP is posted at the following web page: http://www.visupremecourt.org/Administrative_Services/RFPs

The Intent to Bid letter is due at 4:00 p.m., Atlantic Standard Time on July 24, 2008 and Proposals are due by 4:00 p.m. Atlantic Standard Time on August 18, 2008.

Texas Judicial Commission Adopts Functional Model

In a press release: On June 27, 2008, The Supreme Court of Texas Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families formally adopted a functional requirements reference model to address the special case management needs of courts handling child protection dependency cases. The reference model consists of a number of web pages presented in an interactive format, providing overviews of the court process, timelines, a feature to allow deep drilldown into the particulars of each subprocess, and detailed descriptions of the data requirements.

Culminating nearly two years of work, the functional requirements reference model was developed to provide developers of court case management software an authoritative set of requirements for the creation of specialized modules of court software systems. The Office of Court Administration, headed by Carl Reynolds, undertook the project in 2005 after receiving Court Improvement Program grant funding, which was given to the Supreme Court of Texas by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families.

In Texas and most other states, child protection cases must follow tightly controlled timelines. The cases may have multiple participants, with the judge acting in a problemsolving role. The reference model may be the most comprehensive description ever created to address the special needs of courts handling child abuse and neglect cases. Judges, clerks, attorneys, and other stakeholders from around Texas worked closely with technologists to identify almost all aspects of child protection case management. This is not a system, but a set of blueprints that will enable any software developer to understand the unique court process utilized in this type of case to write the software, said Reynolds.

The Supreme Court Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families is chaired by Justice Harriet OrsquoNeill of the Supreme Court of Texas. Judge Darlene Byrne of Travis County chaired the Technology Committee, which oversaw the development of the functional requirements reference model. It is available on the Commission website, at:  http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/texdeck/frd/TexDECK%20Functional%20Requirements.htm .