Friday, 31 August 2012

A Lot of This and That in Court Tech – End of August, 2012

There is a lot of court tech news including the E-Courts 2012 program, US Federal Courts revise jury instructions regarding social media,  Navigating the Hazards of E-Discovery manual, E-Notarization in Virginia, location based verification, another court website hacked, two good articles from IJCA Journal, and an award for a CMS in the Catalonia, Spain courts.

Read more »

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Court Case Management Systems 2012 Part 3: The Court Organization, Users, and Roles

Court Case Management Systems must have the ability to define and capture the court’s organizational structure and user work roles in the basic design.

Read more »

Monday, 6 August 2012

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

Read more »

Thursday, 2 August 2012

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.