IE 11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Judge TOM CECIL: Technology Not Yet Supreme in Court

Judge Tom Cecil, presiding judge for the Sacramento Calif., Superior and Municipal Courts, maintains a 25-year facination with technology. This interest fuels his one, driving ambition: To bring the practice of law into the Information Age with respect and dignity. Over the past eight years, he has done just that for the Sacramento courts.

Judge Tom Cecil, presiding judge for the Sacramento Calif., Superior and Municipal Courts, maintains a 25-year facination with technology. This interest fuels his one, driving ambition: To bring the practice of law into the Information Age with respect and dignity. Over the past eight years, he has done just that for the Sacramento courts.

After Judge Cecil keynoted at the SEARCH Group's annual conference last November in Burlingame, Calif., he discussed justice and technology with "Government Technology's" Contributing Editor Ray Dussault. Some of the following answers were excerpted from his presentation.

Q: What was your first memorable experience coming into the Municipal Court?

A: In 1989, I was appointed to the Municipal Court and was stunned to walk into this building and find myself without any sort of computer equipment whatsoever. For six-and-a-half years, I had worked on pretty much state-of-the-art IBM equipment, but when I came here, there was literally nothing. Since then, it has been a long haul, but things have changed remarkably since I was appointed. By the time I was elevated to the Superior Court in 1992, the transformation, in terms of the automation, was well under way. Today, every judge has a PC, but what is more important are the 585 PCs we have for the staff.

Q: Was there much resistance to the change?

A: Not really. What helped was that it wasn't me alone. A fair number of people contributed to this transformation, including Justice George Nicholson, who was on this court but is now on the Court of Appeals. I think everyone would agree that we wouldn't have the level of automation without Nick's influence.

Q: In your speech to the SEARCH Group, you talked about a dramatic media shift on the horizon, one you liken to the advent of television 50 years ago. Have those changes already occurred, or is it something you see coming in the future?

A: I think for a lot of people -- especially the young people -- a lot of these changes have already occurred. They are accustomed to the technology of the Internet, to faster and faster PCs and incredible graphics on their screens. But what will happen is that people will continually learn new ways to apply the technology we already have.

I don't think these applications will shock anybody though; it has gotten to be kind of ho-hum. The level of expectation is so high that people just take it as a sort of God-given right -- just take it for granted -- that they can do whatever it is they want to do. Still, I think it does take people by surprise sometimes -- all the practical things you can do on the Net and with technology in general.

Q: How is this important to the justice system?

A: This isn't about whether or not justice agencies should have a Web page. It is about whether or not justice agencies want to play by a new set of rules. This is a set of rules that are creating a new economy, a new culture and radically new expectations. Like the television, the Internet is a tidal wave; it will wash over justice agencies and many others, drowning anyone who doesn't learn to swim. Public agencies and private companies must incorporate the Internet into their plans. Failing to do so will substantially increase the likelihood of failure in achieving their missions.

Q: I know that, for you, computer technology is important and applicable, but what makes the recent rise of the Internet so earth-shattering?

A: Television, print and radio share the characteristics of broadcast media; messages are one-way [and] broadcast indiscriminately to a wide audience. In contrast, the Internet is a two-way communication medium, and the audience is an individual user, either searching out sources directly for specific information or engaging with communities of common interest. Whereas the broadcast media is highly regulated with gatekeepers, on the Internet, anyone can be a publisher or broadcaster. The broadcast media acts as a filter, choosing what material will be broadcast within regulatory boundaries. On the Internet, a Web site provides a direct two-way link to its particular user, whether it's electronic data interchange or stamp collecting from a "mom and pop" shop.

The Internet changes the way we distribute information and, in a fundamental way, makes that distribution highly participatory.

Q: In a practical way, what is the most important technology application you see for the justice system right now?

A: The database accessible through the Internet is probably the goal we are all trying to achieve right now. Every court -- whether it is state, local or federal -- has information that a whole host of government agencies need. So making that available over the Net could have a major impact on time and money expenditures for the government. In the end, that can mean better customer service as well.

Also, it is amazing the amount of material that is still communicated by mail [and] tape. We have a building right now that is tens of thousands of square feet of nothing but paper files -- stacked floor to ceiling. I don't want to be in there. I certainly don't want to have to work in there, but it will probably never completely go away. There are just some things that need to be available on paper.

Still, it would be nice to make the system more efficient, usable and accessible, and there is a lot we can do to reduce the likelihood of error due to multiple key stroking and entry. There is a lot of time that is lost through the manual processes that are in place now, and these are the kinds of things that applied technology can change.

Q: Do you have any specific examples?

A: We are doing a lot of interesting things here right now. Recently, we have been interviewing for a new MIS director. One of the applicants was living in Alaska, and we conducted the entire interview by video link. What a huge savings of time and money for both parties. Also, we just went online with the Court Call system, which allows attorneys to attend non-evidentiary hearings over the telephone, and by April [1998] we expect to have the Small Claims Court completely paperless.

The Small Claims system is a perfect place to apply this technology because, while the proceedings are highly personal and emotional, they don't usually involve a lot of actual evidence that needs to be tracked. Small Claims proceedings usually are just, "Harry stole my money and I want it back." But there are tens of thousands of cases, and that is a lot of paper that no one will ever need again.

Q: What are the biggest challenges for the justice system in applying the new technology?

A: There are several. For one, some experts say that whatever technology you buy today will become outdated every 17 days. So, staying on the cutting edge is practically an impossibility.

In government, we have not learned the realities of the new marketplace. When's the last time any governmental agency was capable of making a significant decision, much less moving in significant directions in anything close to 17 days? The answer, obviously, is that we cannot.

Our bureaucratic structures simply don't lend themselves to taking such quick action. Moreover, the taxpayers undoubtedly expect us to reflect more thoroughly on major purchases than a 17-day window of time provides. But the good news is that we don't have to be cutting edge. While we may still fear being scoffed at (or audited), we know that even "old" technology may be new to us, and that all of it potentially offers us vast opportunities and challenges we didn't have before. Our task is to properly harvest what's out there and to do so in a cooperative and mutually-beneficial fashion, cutting edge or not.

Q: What about issues of privacy?

A: Much of the information we have is considered to be in the public domain; but for individuals, it is one thing to know that someone can come down to the courthouse and check out your file, and quite another to think anyone with an Internet connection can download it into their home or office. This is one of those places where changes in the mere access to information will profoundly change the way we look at that information. Questions of privacy will be raised every time the justice system provides the public access to information over the Internet.

Q: You talked a lot about cooperation in your keynote speech. Why is that so important?

A: The justice system has often been slowed by the proprietary attitude from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or even among agencies. The challenge of the future is to coordinate and cooperate among the branches, even as the technology is improved within each branch. What good does it do to have databases here and in, say, Los Angeles, that access thousands of electronic pages of information but that can't speak to each other or, for jurisdictional reasons, aren't shared?

Technology has the ability to obliterate the historical boundaries that have divided us. Boundaries that have prevented us from sharing information. The Internet is one vehicle for bridging the historical chasms and repairing the justice system as a whole.

February Table of Contents