Relating to video conferences in judicial proceedings and certified shorthand reporter audio and video recordings, and including effective date provisions

Description

House File 2281 does the following:

• Provides that for an initial appearance or arraignment, upon the motion of any of the parties, the proceeding is to be conducted by videoconference if appropriate technology is available.
• Provides that for a pretrial conference, scheduling conference, or any other noncontested judicial proceeding, upon the motion of any of the parties, the proceeding is to be conducted by videoconference if appropriate technology is available unless the court orders the proceeding to be held in person for good cause.
• Provides that for a hearing in a criminal, juvenile, or postconviction relief proceeding, upon motion of any of the parties, the hearing may be conducted by videoconference if it is conducted in an efficient manner and does not prejudice a substantial right of any party, if appropriate technology is available.
• Provides that any party may file a resistance to a motion to hold a judicial proceeding by videoconference.
• Provides that the term “open court” includes the remote testimony of a witness by videoconference or other remote means of communication if approved by the court.
• Includes video recordings in the provisions of Iowa Code section 602.3205 related to audio recordings of certified shorthand reporters.

The Bill is effective upon enactment.

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Judicial Branch orders temporarily allowed certain judicial proceedings to be conducted by videoconference or telephone.

Currently, Iowa Code section 624.1 provides that all issues of fact in ordinary actions are to be tried upon oral evidence taken in open court, except that depositions may be used as provided by law.

Assumptions

• The Office of the State Public Defender and the Office of the Attorney General pay mileage expenses for their attorneys to travel to judicial proceedings.
• Approximately 40.0% of proceedings for adult criminal and juvenile cases will be held by videoconference under the Bill.
• Judicial proceedings held by videoconference will incur no mileage expenses to Office of the State Public Defender attorneys and contract attorneys and Office of the Attorney General attorneys.
• Due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the scheduling of judicial proceedings, future mileage expenses for Office of the State Public Defender attorneys and contract attorneys will more closely resemble FY 2019 mileage expenditures than those of more recent fiscal years.
• In FY 2019, $794,000 was expended from the Indigent Defense Fund on mileage expenses for adult criminal and juvenile proceedings. In FY 2019, $86,000 was expended from the Office of the State Public Defender operating budget on mileage expenses for adult criminal and juvenile proceedings.
• The Office of the Attorney General estimates cost savings of approximately $15,000 per year from reduced mileage expenses for its attorneys.
• The Judicial Branch reports that the Bill will result in the need for substantial operational modifications for scheduling and docket management, as the way court proceedings often work in high-volume docket environments is not conducive to switching between in-person and remote proceedings.
• To implement the Bill, the Judicial Branch will create and manage separate court time for in-person and remote proceedings and manage and assign cases from one setting to another.
• Additional motions and the need for orders to set video hearings will add additional work for judges, clerks, and law clerks.
• The Judicial Branch anticipates that an additional Judicial Specialist will be needed for each of the 10 largest urban counties to handle additional scheduling, filing, and technology management and for each of the eight judicial districts to handle scheduling, filing, and technology management in rural areas, for a total of 18.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.
• The cost per Judicial Specialist FTE position is approximately $74,000.

Fiscal Impact

The Bill is estimated to have an annual net cost of $960,000. This consists of costs to the Judicial Branch and savings to the Office of the State Public Defender and the Office of the Attorney General. There may be additional cost savings to counties, but the amount is unknown.

The Bill is estimated to have an annual cost of approximately $1.3 million to the Judicial Branch, as shown in Table 1 below. The Judicial Branch also reports several operational impacts of the Bill, but the fiscal impact of these cannot be determined. The Judicial Branch is funded through the General Fund.

Table 1 — Annual Cost to Judicial Branch The Bill is estimated to have an annual cost savings of approximately $352,000 to the Office of the State Public Defender, as shown in Table 2 below. This cost savings is composed of savings to the Office of the State Public Defender operating budget and the Indigent Defense Fund. Both are funded through the State General Fund.New FTE Positions Cost Per FTE Position Total Cost Per Year 18.0 $73,700 $1,326,600 Table 2 — Annual Savings to the Office of the State Public Defender The Bill is also estimated to have an annual cost savings of approximately $15,000 to the Office of the Attorney General. This cost savings is primarily to the Area Prosecutions Division, which is funded through the Consumer Education and Litigation Fund. Additionally, counties may experience cost savings from reduced transport of defendants to court proceedings by sheriffs, but the extent of these savings cannot be estimated due to a lack of data.

Sources

• Office of the State Public Defender
• Office of the Attorney General
• Judicial Branch
• Iowa State Association of Counties
• Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association
• Legislative Services Agency