(Source: MIRS.news - Published 03/16/2022) Three men engaged in sexual activity. One woman wiped herself while on the toilet. Someone was urinating. Attorneys were driving or smoking cigarettes. All are instances that occurred during Zoom court hearings.
Those are some of the reasons judges asked the Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday not to mandate pandemic-related administrative orders requiring judges to use remote proceedings to the "greatest extent possible."
"Video hearings have decimated courtroom decorum and respect," Oakland County District Judge Lisa L. Asadoorian said during an administrative hearing today. "… Once in my court (parties) even engaged in a male threesome sex act. Even attorneys have logged on while driving or golfing or pool side . . .
"Please leave it in my discretion as to when to appear on screen to do my job. To blanketly require me to conduct certain hearings via video won't work and won't serve justice, and reduces us all to entertainment, sport and folly for the masses," she added.
The court heard more than three hours of comments from dozens of speakers, including many judges, who expressed concern about what they have seen on Zoom, including one who said he was called a "dickhead" during a hearing.
However, the speakers also acknowledged the pluses of remote hearings, including that it allows those with transportation issues to appear and it allows defendants and litigants to not miss work.
The speakers also agreed that "it makes perfect sense" that remote hearings could be appropriate for civil proceedings, but many echoed Oakland County District Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig’s sentiment that using Zoom for criminal cases "is bad policy."
Hartig said attorneys have appeared while driving, smoking cigarettes, in a garage dressed in a hoodie or wearing a swimsuit, holding animals or children and walking or running. In person, judges require attorneys to be dressed professionally.
Hartig also said defendants and other litigants have gotten their hair dyed or urinated while appearing on Zoom for a court hearing. She said there have been those who have intentionally burped or farted to disrupt proceedings and others who have appeared high or intoxicated.
Jessica Zimbelman, managing attorney with the State Appellate Defender Office, recognized that remote participation increases access and benefited efficiency, but said there are pitfalls such as a sentencing hearing for a prison inmate who appeared to be in a cage with only a small slot for viewing.
"It's really important that judges can look people in the eye before depriving them of their freedoms," she said.
Court recorder Jennifer Kane said it is difficult to transcribe the Zoom recordings due to sound issues. She also said it is challenging to mute participants who use foul language both during the hearing and in their log-in information.
"I think there's no respect for our court system doing it through Zoom," she said, acknowledging that it has been effective for civil proceedings, but "not so much" for criminal proceedings.
Some of today's comments were illustrated with judges' own missteps, including not being able to unmute themselves when called upon by Chief Justice Bridget McCormack to speak.
Asadoorian held up signs depicting comments she uses in Zoom hearings, including "We can't hear you; unmute yourself." But, the signs were obscured by the filter Asadoorian used.
"Do you mind reading it?" Justice Richard Bernstein, who is blind, interrupted. "This is actually another issue with Zoom. … You've highlighted a huge issue I have, which is I really don't get to participate."
"Exactly," Asadoorian said.
