Technology, Trials, and Trends Meets Blogs, Webcasts, and Friends?

Recent articles from the ABA Journal touch upon how the use of technology is not just shaping trials and trial techniques, but also how trials are covered and may be covered in the future.

The first article, Judge Explains Why He Allowed Reporter to Live Blog Federal Criminal Trial, discusses an Iowa case where a reporter, Trish Mehaffey, was allowed to use a laptop to cover a tax fraud trial through a live blog. The practice may be a growing one.

Mehaffey says she’s heard of several reporters allowed to blog from state court proceedings. A few federal judges besides Bennett [the judge above] have also allowed live-blogging of trials. Accredited journalists were allowed to use laptops and other electronic devices to cover the trial of five men convicted of plotting to attack Fort Dix, according to a court website listing the rules. The media representatives received a password giving them wireless Internet access in the courtroom.

In a second article, US Appeals Court Orders Expedited Briefs in Webcast Challenge, brings us to Boston where use of a webcam was approved to cover a hearing involving an alleged illegal music download case (the hearing has been delayed until Feb. 24 as the Recording Industry Association of America is appealing the judge's decision.) The Boston Globe reports,

The appeals court said ... the question of webcasting raises "subtantial and novel questions," and it has invited groups and individuals to file friend-of-the-court briefs by Jan. 29. The appeals court said it may hold oral arguments, as well.

In a third article, In Seeming First, Aussie Court Says Default Judgment Can Be Served on Facebook, a link to a Herald Sun article, Lawyers given permission to serve debtors with default judgment through Facebook, discusses how social networks on the web could be making inroads into post judgment issues in Australia. Here the plaintiff was allowed, by the court, to serve a default judgment through Facebook.

The Facebook profiles showed the defendants' dates of birth, email addresses and friend lists -- and the co-defendants were friends with one another. This information was enough to satisfy the court that Facebook was a sufficient method of communicating with the defendants.

These early cases are examples of the issues likely to come. Remember, these issues were all approved by a few of today's jurists. What changes will the Web 2.0 generation of judges and beyond be considering?