In re Re Videoconferencing in the Dist. Courts
Citation | 2018 OK 96 |
Parties | RE VIDEOCONFERENCING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS |
Decision Date | 10 December 2018 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
The Rules for Videoconferencing Pilot Program previously adopted by this Court and codified as Rules 1.500 through 1.506 at Part XIII of the Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, Okla. Stat. Title 12, Chap. 15, Appendix 1, are hereby withdrawn in their entirety. The attached rules for Videoconferencing in the District Courts are hereby adopted, to be codified as Rule 34 of the Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma, Okla. Stat. Title 12, Chapter 2, Appendix, and shall be effective December 15th, 2018.
DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT this 10th day of December, 2018.
ALL JUSTICES CONCUR.
Rules for District Courts of Oklahoma
Chapter 2, Appendix
The Supreme Court hereby authorizes and approves the use of videoconferencing in the District Courts of Oklahoma, as set forth in the following general provisions:
(1) A proceeding conducted by videoconferencing shall be conducted in the same manner as if the parties had appeared in person, and the judge presiding over the matter may exercise all powers consistent with the proceeding.
(2) In any proceeding conducted by videoconference, the remote location(s) shall be considered an extension of the courtroom and held before the judge who is presiding. The judge's pronouncements, instructions, and rulings shall have the same force and binding effect as if all participants had been physically present in the courtroom. The presiding judge shall consider and rule on any objections of a party or non-party witness prior to beginning the proceeding.
(3) An oath administered by the judge, court reporter, or other authorized person to a witness, interpreter, or a party in a proceeding conducted by videoconference shall have the same force and binding effect as if the oath had been administered to a person physically present in the courtroom.
(4) In any proceeding conducted by videoconference, a court reporter, who can see and hear the witness and other participants, may administer oaths, record notes, and transcribe the proceeding without being physically present in the same locale as either the judge or the remote participants.
(5) In any proceeding conducted by videoconference, an interpreter, who can see and hear the witness and other participants, may provide interpreter services without being physically present in the same locale as either the judge or the remote participants.
(6) Any system used for conducting a proceeding by videoconferencing shall conform to the following minimum requirements:
(7) Any pleading, other document, or exhibit used in a proceeding conducted by videoconferencing may be transmitted between the court's location and any remote site by electronic means, including, but not limited to, facsimile, scan, or email. Signatures on any document transmitted by electronic means shall have the same force and effect as an original signature.
(8) Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, any original exhibit offered and/or admitted into evidence from a remote site shall be transferred by the moving party to the court reporter within two business days of the close of the proceeding. If no court reporter was utilized during the proceeding, the judge shall instruct the moving party regarding the transmission and custody of the exhibit.
(9) Any stipulation/waiver of any right to be present in the courtroom shall be obtained at the commencement of the proceeding, either on the record or in writing. A written stipulation/waiver shall be filed in the case and made a part of the record.
(10) This Rule authorizes the use of videoconferencing in all stages of civil or criminal proceedings.
(11) In all other respects, a proceeding conducted using videoconferencing technology shall be conducted in the same manner as any proceeding conducted in person at one site.
(12) This Rule is not intended to affect the statutory authorization for the limited uses of videoconferencing technology found in the Judge Gary Dean Courtroom Technology Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 20, §§ 3005 & 3006 (2011), or the Uniform Child Witness by Alternative Methods Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, §§ 2611.3 through 2615 (2011).
For purposes of this Rule the following definitions shall apply:
(3) "videoconferencing" is defined as an interactive technology that sends video, voice and data signals over a transmission circuit so that two or more individuals or groups can communicate with each other simultaneously using video monitors, and
(4) "participants" include litigants, crime victims, counsel, witnesses while on the stand, essential court staff and interpreters, but excludes other interested persons and the public at large.
This Rule is intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial