NCJ Number
31527
Journal
Judicature Volume: 59 Issue: 5 Dated: (DECEMBER 1975) Pages: 230-238
Date Published
1975
Length
9 pages
Annotation
THIS CRITIQUE OF THE USE OF PRERECORDED VIDEOTAPE TRIALS (PRVTT) AND IN-COURT VIDEOTAPE COURT RECORDS DETAILS THE DISADVANTAGES OF THESE APPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF EXPENSE, COURT TIME, AND EFFECT ON THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.
Abstract
THE AUTHOR FIRST DESCRIBES THE OHIO EXPERIMENT IN WHICH VIDEOTAPES WERE USED AS THE SOLE MEANS OF MAKING THE RECORD IN THREE OF THE FOUR CRIMINAL COURTROOMS OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY. SEVERAL CRITICISMS OF THIS METHOD BY MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN FRANKLIN COUNTY ARE THEN PRESENTED. IN GENERAL, THE JUDGES STATED THAT THE VIDEOTAPE RECORD WAS UNWIELDY AND TIME-CONSUMING, COMPARED TO A TYPEWRITTEN TRANSCRIPT. PROBLEMS IN TRANSCRIBING FROM VIDEOTAPE RECORDS ARE ALSO NOTED. SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF PRERECORDED VIDEOTAPE TRIALS ARE NOTED. AMONG THESE ARE THE HIGH COSTS OF VIDEOTAPE RECORDS; THE AMOUNT OF TIME CONSUMED IN FILMING, VIEWING, EDITING, AND REPRINTING THE VIDEOTAPE; THE LIMITING EFFECT SUCH VIDEOTAPES WOULD HAVE ON THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE; AND THE POSSIBLE DETRIMENTAL OR BIASING EFFECTS PRVTT WOULD HAVE ON THE JURY. SEVERAL CRITICISMS OF VIDEOTAPE USE IN TRIALS BY NOTED SCHOLARS, JUDGES, AND EXPERTS ARE OFFERED. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS AND CRITICISMS, SERIOUS THOUGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO VIDEOTAPE USE BEFORE IT IS GENERALLY ADOPTED.