Hey, there! Log in / Register

Nothing wrong with Zoom court hearings in a pandemic, but somebody who wants to wait for an in-person hearing has that right, state's highest court rules

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that holding key court hearings via Zoom in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic is constitutional - but that a man facing criminal charges who agrees to waive his speedy-trial rights can decide to wait until he can have a hearing on evidence in person.

A Suffolk County grand jury had indicted John Vazquez Diaz on a cocaine-trafficking charge in April, 2019, according to the court's summary of the case. He was arraigned on May 30 on the charge, which would mean a mandatory 10-year sentence if he's convicted. Seven months later, his lawyer filed a motion to suppress certain statements made to police and evidence in the case. A hearing was scheduled for Jan. 21, 2020, but that was continued twice, first at the request of his lawyer, then at the request of prosecutors.

On May 4, the hearing was postponed again, this time because of Covid-19.

The judge subsequently ordered that the hearing take place via Zoom. The defendant filed a motion objecting to a Zoom hearing and instead requested that the case be continued until an in-court hearing could be held safely. The defendant is incarcerated on cash bail and agreed to waive his right to a speedy trial to wait for an in-person evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress.

But the judge said nope and ordered the hearing held electronically, after which Vazquez Diaz filed the appeal that the SJC decided today.

The court noted that, in response to the national emergency, it and the state's trial courts promulgated emergency orders that allowed for Zoom hearings and for "tolling" any Covid-19 delays - essentially removing them from the time used to determine whether a defendant is getting his or her constitutionally mandated speedy trial.

Vazquez Diaz's lawyer argued that a Zoom hearing

[W]ould violate several of his State and Federal constitutional rights. Specifically, the defendant contends that a Zoom hearing would violate his right to be present, to confrontation, to a public trial, and to effective assistance of counsel.

The court disagreed, saying that

[I]n certain circumstances, a motion to suppress hearing may be conducted by video conference without violating the defendant's right to be present, so long as the video conferencing technology provides adequate safeguards.

Zoom software, the court said, provides such safeguards, including the right to a public hearing - anybody can get the dial-in number or Web link to watch a hearing - and to "effective assistance of counsel" through private "breakout rooms." Confrontation? Zoom is designed to let people talk to each other.

The risk of erroneous deprivation, however, is minimal, given the safeguards provided by a Zoom hearing in this case.The defendant's attendance helps assure that he has a fair and just hearing under due process "because he can consult with his lawyer, listen to the evidence, and assess the credibility of the witnesses (and the evidence) against him." Id. at374. Although generally not preferable, with today's videoconferencing technology, a virtual hearing can approximate a live physical hearing in ways that it could not previously. The use of Zoom can effectively safeguard the defendant's right to be present by allowing him to listen to the evidence, adequately observe the witnesses who testify at the hearing, and privately consult with his attorney at anytime during the Zoom hearing.

The judge also outlined the steps that would be taken in the event any technological difficulties arose. She stated that the court would suspend the hearing at the request of counsel and resume the hearing after the issue was resolved. We emphasize that this is an important protection and urge judges to pay careful attention to the technology. If the technology does not function as described, it is crucial that the court suspend the hearing, rather than risk sacrificing certain of the defendant's constitutional rights.

But at the same time, the court continued, the judge "abused her discretion" by refusing to let Vazquez Diaz wait behind bars for an in-person hearing even after he agreed not to count the time he waited against his speedy-trial calculations.

The defendant's decision to waive his right to a speedy trial and accept the consequences of such a delay eliminates any public health concerns that would accompany an in-person hearing during the pandemic. The government's primary interest in holding a virtual hearing is the timely disposition of the case.

Here, where there are no civilian witnesses or victims, the harm to the government's case caused by any further delay is minimal. The evidence and the testimony of police officers can be preserved adequately. The Commonwealth has presented no evidence that the officers or the evidence that is in their custody will be unavailable if the hearing is continued. While reducing the backlog of cases is a legitimate interest, there are many other cases that may be ripe for a virtual this time.

The court did caution Vazquez Diaz:

The defendant must be aware, however, that when in-person proceedings resume,there will be a significant backlog and he may not be able to obtain a hearing as soon as he might wish.

Briefs by defendant and DA.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling230.62 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

The defendant is incarcerated on cash bail ...

I expected to read that he's out on bail. Apparently, he'd rather stay in jail than do a remote trial.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm guessing the defendant was hoping that the charges would be dismissed because he couldn't get a speedy trial due to insisting on doing the court proceedings in person. Now that that avenue is closed, wanna bet he'll be find with Zoom hearings now?

up
Voting closed 0

A relative of mine has a small claims case against a guy who owes my relative about $5000 for not paying for services rendered. The guy knows he'll lose in court and has already dragged it out for about 15 months with a bunch of BS excuses. Their trial was due to come up again later this month on Zoom. He petitioned the court that he wanted to wait until he could appear in person and the court allowed it to be postponed again until August.

up
Voting closed 0