Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Morning. The Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Public Safety Committee will come to order. We welcome today's panelists and guests for the Joint Informational Hearing between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Public Safety Committee entitled The Judicial Branch Protecting Access to Justice as COVID-19 State of Emergency Expires. This hearing is part of the Legislature's responsibility to provide some oversight, and it is in connection with the Protect Our Progress Initiative.

As we continue to take some precautions to manage ongoing COVID-19 risk, the Senate continues to welcome the public to our hearings and has provided access to both in-person and teleconference participation for public comment. For all individuals wishing to provide public comment, the participant toll-free and access code is posted on our Committee website. It will be displayed on the screen. I'll announce it now. Today's participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 6217161 public participation will be limited to 1 minute per person.

We will take up to 30 minutes of public comments near the conclusion of the hearing. Please let us know your name and your organization, if applicable, before providing your remarks. For detailed instructions on how the teleconference system works, please refer to the Senate and Judiciary Committee websites. For today's hearing, we'll be hearing all of the witness panels on the agenda prior to taking any public comment. Once we've heard all the witnesses, we'll have public comment at the end.

I'll maintain decorum during the hearing as is customary, and any individual who is disrupted may be removed from the remote hearing service or have their connection muted. Let me begin by thanking Senator Wahab. Senator Wahab, thank you very much. This is a hearing concerning the Judiciary, so it's appropriate that we are joined by the Public Safety Committee, and I appreciate your participation, your leadership in this effort.

This is our second hearing in over two years, just over two years on the topic of access to justice and efficiencies in the court. Our first hearing was in February of 2021, barely a year into the pandemic, and we, along with the Assembly Judiciary Committee, convened to assess the impact of COVID-19's rapid onset on the courts and how it was impacting access to justice at that time to learn about the best practices that could be adopted by the courts. Today, things are different.

Governor Newsom has terminated California's COVID-19 State of Emergency, and the Biden Administration has announced that the Federal COVID-19 State of Emergency will expire in May. Court operations have largely returned to pre-pandemic normal, but we're interested in hearing about court operations today. Courthouses have reopened and judges are hearing their regular caseloads, so far as we know. Nevertheless, the Pandemic has cast a very long shadow over access to justice here in California and left a case backlog that is still impacting litigants.

At the same time, the pandemic led to innovations that have benefited parties in the courts, and the use of remote technology in both civil and criminal cases, first allowed by the emergency order, has now been codified so that people can opt to appear for matters by Zoom or a teleconference. Self-help centers have also shifted. Some of the services that were provided in the courthouse now be provided remotely. These advances have allowed parties to access the courts without missing a day of work or school.

Our goal today, along with Senate Public Safety Committee, is to gain a comprehensive picture of where the courts stand now. We want to learn more about what's working well, what needs improvement, and where we are in the process, and what the Legislature can do to empower the courts and court users to improve access to justice.

First, going to hear about the state of the courts today, I believe, from Judge Anderson, from the Judicial Counsel, who provide an overview of the status of the case backlog and major issues impacting the courts. Our second task is to discuss two major issues impacting the courts, the use of remote technology for court appearances and the availability of court reporters. We're going to hear three different panels about the use of remote technology in civil and criminal cases.

Our first remote technology panel will address remote technology in civil cases. We'll hear from practitioners, court employees, and others to hear what works and what needs improvement. Senator Wahab will preside over our second and third remote technology panels, which will look at the use of remote technology in criminal cases from the perspective of counsel in court operations. Our final panel will address the availability of court reporters in civil cases.

We'll hear from another representative of the Judicial Counsel, from court reporters, from an on-the-ground litigator, and from a representative of the Court Reporters Board, which oversees the licensing and regulation of court reporters in the State of California. Let me now turn it over to Senator Wahab. Then we'll hear from our vice chairs. Thank you very much for being here. Senator Wilk and I think Senator Ochoa Bogh will be here shortly. All right, Senator Wahab, thank you.

Thank you and good morning. And thank you to everyone participating in or joining us for today's Joint Hearing with the Senate Judiciary on the judicial branch and remote proceedings. Our committees have convened today to discuss protecting access to justice as the COVID-19 State of Emergency expires and to explore the continued use of remote proceedings in courts to ensure justice.

At this hearing, we will hear from those who are involved in civil and criminal proceedings in the courts as judges, civil attorneys, district attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, and court reporters. It is my hope that in having this hearing today, we will all leave with a better understanding of how courts have been operating with remote proceedings and whether any changes should be made to continuing using technology while assuring access to justice for all is involved. Thank you again to our panelists and for everyone joining us.

While we are waiting for Senator Ochoa Bogh, I'd like to turn it over to Senator Wilk, our Vice Chair, and hopefully, if he has any remarks he'd like to share. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, first of all, I want to thank our Chairs for convening this hearing. I think it's a very important issue. I know the judicial branch is supposed to be the third coequal branch of government is not always treated that way. But I will say for our citizens, when they do have to access the judicial branch, it is the most important branch of government. Me personally, I just finished my civic duty of doing, of serving jury duty and survived that quite well.

And I think anything that we can do to make the process smoother for all I think is a noble thing. So I'm looking forward to hearing the testimony today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Wilk. And we'll now turn to our first panel. Judge Anderson, if you would approach, I would be grateful. Thank you, Judge Anderson. And the floor is yours.

Good morning. And let's see, am I on now?

You are.

All righty.

And good morning Chairs, as well as good morning Vice Chairs, as well as Committee Members. I'm Judge Marla Anderson, Judge, Monterey County Superior Court, also a Judicial Council Member. I chair its legislation Committee as well as I'm a Member of the Judicial Council ad hoc work group on post-pandemic initiatives. And again, good morning, and thank you for organizing this Joint Hearing today and for inviting the representatives of the judicial branch to testify on these important issues. We very much appreciate it.

I was asked to provide the status of court operations as the COVID-19 State of Emergency expires. In the year prior to the Pandemic, there were about 6 million cases filed in California courts and about 4.5 million cases disposed annually. Over the course of the Pandemic, filings followed different trajectories. Some case types filings trended lower while others dipped but trended relatively steady. Some case types, like felony and civil unlimited, returned quickly to pre-pandemic levels, while others took longer to resume to pre-pandemic levels.

Some case types, like infraction cases, continue to lag pre-pandemic rates. Courts face backlog challenges as a result of the pandemic, primarily in processing cases. Workforce challenges at the courts had been exacerbated because of illnesses and retirements, but courts are now back happily to say, to pre-pandemic clearance rates, largely because of the actions of the trial courts, the Governor, the Legislature, the former Chief Justice, and the Judicial Counsel.

Funding that the Legislature provided to the courts assisted with these challenges to help pay for overtime, temporary staffing, and short-term facility rentals to ensure proper physical distancing. The Budget Act of 2020 included 50 million one-time General Funds. The Budget Act of 2021 included 60 million one-time General Funds to address backlogs and workload delays. Additionally, the Legislature funded the Chief Justices Early Disposition Ready Conferences, which included $30 million one-time General Fund for the Temporary Assigned Judges Program to support Early Disposition Readiness Conferences Programs in trial courts.

The Judicial Council adopted emergency rules to ensure that the public continued access to justice during the height of the Pandemic. Specifically, in April of 2020, the Judicial Council adopted Temporary Rule Three, and that was the use of technology for remote appearances in civil and criminal and Rule Five, which permitted personal appearance waivers of defendants and criminal. And these provided authority for courts to conduct proceedings remotely during the COVID-19 State of Emergency.

These emergency rules were crucial to keeping court proceedings going when courts, court participants, and justice partners could not meet in public settings. In 2021, the Legislature codified the court's authority to conduct remote proceedings by adding Code of Civil Procedure 367.75, and that was SB 241, authored by Senator Umberg. The Legislature also codified the court's authority to conduct remote proceedings in criminal cases with the enactment of AB 199, a budget trailer Bill.

Also important, lower filing volumes in combination with operational changes and use of technology in some case types like limited civil, conservatorships, guardianships, juvenile, and small claims have given courts an opportunity to catch up in certain areas, demonstrated by the higher clearance rates for those case types. These combined actions supported the courts as they responded to and moved forward from the Pandemic.

The last topic that I'd like to cover on this opening panel are two reports that the Judicial Council provided to the Legislature when it first passed legislation authorizing remote proceedings. The report submitted pursuant to Coda Civil Procedure 367.8, was submitted to the Legislature in January and included data on the number of remote proceedings and satisfaction rates. As part of that effort, the Judicial Council received data from 38 courts on the number of remote proceedings and criminal matters.

Based on this data, we estimate that in those courts there were approximately 422,000 remote felony and misdemeanor criminal proceedings and 125,000 infraction proceedings in a one-year period. On the civil side, based on data from 51 courts, we estimate that there were nearly a million civil remote proceedings annually in those courts. Put another way, the data suggests that there are over 6000 remote hearings taking place in California courts each day, over 700 hearings each hour of the business day.

Remote proceedings have allowed Californians to avoid over 1.5 million trips to the courthouse. Most striking for me, in the data that was collected, 35,000 individuals, including the public and court employees, responded to a simple question about their experience with remote proceedings. 96% of those who responded reported that they had a positive experience with the remote proceedings. This includes parties, attorneys, and court employees. Parties and attorneys were 91% positive. Employees were 98% positive.

The second report was under Code of Civil Procedure 367.9, which directed the council to convene a working group made up of many court stakeholders to consider and make recommendations on remote proceedings. That working group went through a long process where they collected information from various stakeholders, received written comment, and held two-hour public comment sessions. All of this input informed the development of the work group's recommendations. The workgroup's recommendations were submitted to the Legislature and Governor in January.

Among the recommendations, the workgroup identified strong support for making remote proceedings available, but not mandatory in all case types, both civil and criminal, when courts, parties, and other participants have access to remote technology, clear and private communication between parties and their attorneys is available, and technology provides for clear communication between all participants and court interpreters. In conclusion, court case processing rates have returned to pre-pandemic levels.

We are focused on utilizing data to improve our court operation and services and continuing to provide innovation solutions and equal access to justice for the people of California. Continued investment in remote access, as well as the flexibility to continue expanding remote options, will provide increased access to the courts for the public and will reduce disruption to the public, as well as prepare courts for future crises that may be caused by a pandemic, wildfires, natural disasters, or bad weather, or any other unexpected event.

While initial technology implementations may need some areas of improvement, we see the services getting better and better as we use them and continue to serve the public. Thank you.

Thank you, Judge Anderson. All right, let's turn to the panel. Questions by panel members. Seeing no questions by panel members. I have some questions. So what has the Judicial Council observed that has worked well? What's worth keeping? You mentioned remote access, and what in particular needs improvement?

I think what works well are the remote proceedings making it available and making it the choice of the court user. And it has worked well. I think the Council has worked with courts to improve their technology and improve how they deliver services to the public through remote technology. What has worked well is the availability of just access to the courts without necessarily having to come down to the court, depending on your circumstances.

I think what needs improvement, as well is the continued and consistent focus on improving technology. Improving best practices and improving procedures, and just reviewing the data and looking at the data, and implementing what the data suggests are the best improvements.

Judge, thank you. Do you have any information with respect to the superior courts that are basically bumping up against the five-year rule?

With respect to the civil cases? Correct.

Civil cases, correct.

Courts are working very hard in the civil arena to get cases out. They are hearing those motions with respect to whether a case should be dismissed or not dismissed. And I think there's been progress in courts to make sure that they're able to get those civil trials out. Working with respect to settlement conferences, I believe the Assigned Judges Program, the Chief Justice Assigned Judges Program has really gathered a group of judges to go out to various courts to engage in settlement conferences to assist those courts to better dispose of the civil cases so that we can get cases resolved before that five-year mark.

Do we know what superior courts are bumping up against the five-year rule?

With respect to their pending civil cases? I don't have that specific data with me today, with respect to which specific courts are having challenges, with respect to potentially dismissing those cases. But I believe, with respect to the rules that permitted the cases, with respect to the statute of limitations has assisted, and I know I've handled an unlimited civil calendar myself. With respect to those settlement conference council have been very, very good about working on resolutions, dispositions, agreeing to extending trials, and doing a variety of things.

So courts are working their best that they possibly can with counsel in order to make sure that justice is served and no one is out of luck simply because of the five-year rule. As well as making sure we're pushing cases to trial and pushing cases to settlement.

Okay, maybe another date, another time. Be useful to know, of course, we get a lot of anecdotal information about courts that are bumping up against the five year rule, cases that are being dismissed and maybe we come back and.

Yes, I don't have the specific data on that. I believe the most recent report that was submitted to the Legislature with respect to the data, should have the civil case resolution case rates that has increased and gotten better post-pandemic as well.

How about Monterey County?

We're good.

Okay, good.

Monterey County, we're good. I mean, we push hard. I'm quite sure some of the attorneys that are here who've had cases in Monterey County can probably assure, yes. I've had the unlimited calendar and I haven't had any difficulty getting cases to trial and submitting. We've been very good with our juries.

With respect to appearing, we had in-person jury trials. We have not done very many remote jury trials. I have experienced remote witnesses, more like your expert witnesses in civil trials as well. But we have been able to get our trials out. We're very, very happy, and we've been able to get our criminal trials out as well.

Okay, well, thank you. Other questions. Seeing no? Oh, I'm sorry, Senator. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. And thank you, judge, for being here today. We always appreciate hearing how the judicial system is working. Our system of funding the courts is kind of an archaic system because it's based on cases way back when. And some of the courts, some of the more rural courts, are struggling because they have the same obligations as the bigger counties or the bigger courts.

And this is probably above your pay grade right now, but I'm wondering if it's time, post-COVID, to go back and look at how we fund those courts and what kind of assistance might help them to be able to meet the needs that they have. Either because their caseload has grown or because they just don't have the resources to be able to do the things that some of the bigger courts are.

And what this is leading me to is part of the challenge in terms of understanding what was happening from my perspective, is that our public health officers operate within a county system, and every county does things a little bit differently. And that's been my experience with the courts as well. Every court runs their systems a little bit differently. The goal of trying to get them on a uniform computer system or electronic system just was a little bit too cumbersome because everybody had different systems.

And so I'm wondering if all of that, as we look at how can we access to justice, is important for all of us as we look at access to justice and how the courts are operating, whether an infusion of resources would be appropriate to help, post-COVID, us get things back on track and operate more as a unified system. I know it's all over the place, but we have you here today, so I'd ask that question.

And yes, funding is always appreciated in the courts and the judicial branch. And we have received some funding, as I previously indicated, with respect to assistance with case backlogs.

It was one-time funding and yes. It would be helpful to have additional funding. And yes, the council has done a good job of working on best practices so that assist other courts in terms of coming up with best practices as well as our allocation methodology that continues to improve, seeks to make sure that there is a funding floor for all of the courts that I think currently it's about 90% is a funding floor of need with respect to each court.

So we've done a good job to make sure that the funding is based on workload and based on what you have in your court with respect to your obligations, is now far more equal. So we have done that, continue to do that, and we'll continue to work on that. And making sure that there is a funding floor so that no court is below at least 90% of need.

Thank you.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Sorry, just going to jump in with this. I know it wasn't specifically covered here today, but one very big concern that we've all had prior, during, especially during COVID, and now we're sort of on pins and needles here is about evictions. Is there any insight you could give us as to what we've gone through?

I know we've had a lot of protections for tenants to stop or slow down the evictions, but now we're coming out of the COVID and this was a big issue when it came to the budget. Were we ready? Were we able to address what could be a tsunami? But maybe it's not. Do you have any sense of where we may be so that we can better prepare? Great.

And are you referencing with respect to the courts in terms of how they're handling the increase in the eviction filings?

And yes, it is on the upswing with respect to eviction cases and eviction trials, but each court is working the best they can with the resources that they have to really work on resolutions. I think, at least within Monterey County, we were fortunate to be able to have a mediation center where we do send some of those eviction cases for folks to go ahead and mediate. That was the Mandell Gisnet Center and so we've been fortunate.

Other courts are also working on innovations with respect to mediation for those eviction cases. But I think primarily is getting information out to both tenants and owners of properties from the perspective of what's available to them and what can they do.

And what are the resources and making sure that they're legal aid services for those folks who can't afford to hire their own particular attorney and places for people to go to get information so that cases are appropriately filed that need to be filed within the court and once they are filed within the court, the courts are doing their best to make sure that those cases move through the system quickly. But as they move through the system quickly, also making sure that there are things in place where you can try to resolve matters short of the trial and work towards mediation.

But it is making sure that the public has the appropriate information in terms of what their rights are, how cases should proceed, as well as the owners in terms of what's available to them in terms of alternatives.

Seeing no further questions or comments. Judge Anderson don't go very far. We're going to invite the next panel to approach. Next panel consists of Judge Anderson, although I think, Judge Anderson, you've touched on remote access, but if you have anything else to add, we would welcome it. The second presenter is John Cotter of the California Defense Counsel. Third, Mr. Greg Rizio, President of the Consumer Attorneys of California. Fourth, Janet Hudock, Vice President of the we're going to do three at a time.

Yeah. And also Janet was the one who can't make it

Oh, sorry. All right. So why don't we do this? Let's start with the first three, and then we'll bring up the next three. So, Judge Anderson, you're first. What would you like to add to your previous comments?

And thank you so much. Yes. And good morning again, everyone. With respect to the remote access, just a few things, and they're more anecdotal information. With respect to the benefits of civil remote proceedings and remote access to the courts has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate its value as the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that it was crucial for Californians to have a variety of ways of accessing the courts. We've been able to see many benefits in giving people the option to participate remotely in civil proceedings.

For example, remote participation helps preserve access to justice for many Californians and vulnerable court users. It reduces time and expense for them when they would otherwise lose time from work, incur travel expenses, childcare expenses, parking costs. These are for short hearings and short court appearances. It also helps to preserve equal access to justice and court services by continuing to allow courts the flexibility to hold in-person court proceedings when it's more appropriate.

Also, giving people the option to participate remotely has also increased participation of litigants, attorneys, court personnel, and others while maintaining and expanding efficient and effective courtroom proceedings. And finally, remote civil proceedings incentivizes courts to develop or maintain efficiencies and refine practices designed to increase participation in court functions. Remote access to the courts continues to benefit especially vulnerable populations.

For example, we have seen benefits in proceedings to determine competence to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity, and those are your LLPS, certifications, and juvenile justice proceedings. Patients at the Department of State hospitals have been able to maintain their continuity of care. When patients must be transported via bus for in-court personal appearances and the facilities are too far for same-day transportation, then those patients are held in county jails.

And this is not a therapeutic setting, leading to decompensation and other treatment setbacks. So remote access has been beneficial there. Remote access to the courts also maintains continuity of care for patients in other hospital settings, including acute psychiatric facilities and in substance abuse facilities. Remote participation also enables individuals with serious mental illness and or substance abuse disorders who cannot leave their facilities during in-house treatment, the ability to participate in proceedings from that facility.

And because behavioral health experts are in short supply, remote appearance ensures continuity of care. If clinicians must attend court proceedings in person, this impacts other staff and patient care, as much-needed services cannot be provided while clinicians are away. The ability to appear remotely has also benefit participants in juvenile justice proceedings. For example, they can be very, very helpful when a minor lives a great distance away from the courthouse or is in school, maybe in a placement. And traveling takes time and expense.

Remote participation also greatly benefits youth who are sensitive to change in their environment or who struggle with health issues. And it allows participation of youth who cannot appear in person due to inpatient facility restrictions. Family members have also benefited by avoiding taking time off of work and related travel costs to attend hearings. And remote participation allows justice partners such as probation officers, behavioral health experts, and others to resolve cases more expeditiously.

In juvenile justice proceedings, remote proceedings also support the goal of the recently realigned Office of Youth and Community Restoration. The ability to participate remotely promotes a continuum of services for youth that is trauma-responsive, culturally-informed, while supporting positive youth development. And finally, as noted in my previous testimony, court users appear to feel similar with respect to benefits of remote participation, as 96% of them, in a March to October survey, found that they had a positive experience.

And again, thank you for the opportunity to be able to present to you.

Thank you. Thank you, Judge Anderson. Mr. Cotter.

Thank you, Senator. My name is John Cotter. I'm President of the California Defense Counsel. I am also a practitioner. My firm is Diepenbrock and Cotter. I'm a seven-attorney firm, practiced primarily in Northern California. Northern California counties from Fresno to the border.

I appreciate this opportunity today on remote proceedings, I would tell you that I think the superior courts have done a fabulous job adapting to it, and I see for certain appearances, I think it is incredibly important to keep this going, certain proceedings, and I'll get to that in a second. But we support the sunset on the Dakota Civil Procedure and extending this ability to appear remotely. We have not experienced any bandwidth problems. We haven't had to have any proceedings to be redone.

And again, the Superior Court seems to have adapted so quickly to it. Some of our Members would like to see a uniform system. Primarily, they're using Zoom and it is quite remarkable at the courts, you see 50, 60 people online, and they are switching between appearances quite well. So I'd say overall, it's worked very well for certain things. Now we have what we call case management conferences. We have certain just kind of case management-type things that go on.

And the remote appearances are phenomenal for that. Saves litigants time and money. They don't have to pay their attorney to drive long distances, or even short distances, is very costly for litigants. And so I think in that regards, it's been very good and also keeping cars off the road. So there's a lot of good benefits to it. There is one thing that I would say that we would be very much against would be the jury trials. A jury trial should not be remote.

The jurors need to be present. It should not be forced on anyone. Witnesses, including expert witnesses, if a party demands it, they need to be in court. That is one of the hallmarks of our judicial system, an adversarial position system. And our position on this is also supported by the American Board of Trial Advocates, which is an organization dedicated to the independence of the judiciary and the effective presentation of civil trials. We feel it's very important that jurors be able to be observed by the attorneys.

It's very much important. And also the jury instructions require a juror to observe a witness and see how they present themselves while they are testifying. There's too many opportunities for distractions at home. And to maintain the integrity of the jury trial, we feel those need to be done in person. As far as a lot of the other remote appearances, I think that is fine to continue.

And we would encourage the state to continue the remote appearances with regard to case management conferences, simple, short hearings where it's just not necessary for people to be in person. But at the same time, if someone wants to come up and show up in the courtroom, I think they should be allowed to do so. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cotter, Mr. Rizio.

Thank you, Senators, and good morning. My name is Greg Rizio. I am the President of the Consumer Attorneys of California, and I am here to testify and tell you that remote access appearance works. It is efficient. We have not experienced any technical difficulties with it, and it is the preferred method of both our members and our clients. We strongly support the continued use of it.

To describe the efficiency of it, it probably makes the most sense to describe for you what an appearance was like prior to remote access. And I'll use a minor's compromise because that is an appearance that we all make almost on a weekly basis. Our clients and the attorneys to get to court would have to be there at 8:30. So from the Inland Empire, where I practice, Riverside, I would have to leave between 6:00 and 6:15 in the morning to make a Los Angeles 8:30 appearance.

My clients also will have to do that. We get on crowded roads, which are already trafficked, and we are adding to that to get there. When we get to court, we get to stand in crowded lines at the metal detectors. We then get to stand in crowded hallways. Today we call those events super spreaders. But that wasn't the way it was before.

When we check-in, the attorneys know if it is a long calendar and we are going to be more at the 9:15 to 9:30 call. We always, well, not always. Most of the time we have an appearance afterwards. We will have a deposition. Sometimes that is of police officers or of firefighters or of paramedics. And if we are late, we are holding them back and they are sitting there affecting public safety, which I know is part of this hearing. We also have expert scene visits.

If we are late, other attorneys and our clients have to pay for experts to sit there and do nothing because our appearance went late. We got out late, and we would get to this next appearance late, making everyone else delayed. Quickly, while we're talking about being in court, I would like to talk because I know this panel is also going to address court technology with court reporters. I would like to say that there has been a lack of court reporters in court for us.

We are experiencing excessive fees, sometimes from five to $10,000 a day. And that is making it difficult for us to take certain cases, denying access of justice to a lot of clients who are not in the catastrophic cases. Let's look at the court appearance of a minor's compromise from a client's perspective. A parent has to take a day off of work, has to get up at 6:15.

If they have another child or other children, they have to figure out, how am I going to get that child fed, clothed, to school. Many times they have to have a family member come over and help making that family member take a day off work. Now we have two individuals taking days off of work, or a neighbor, or they have to hire some childcare to come help them get that done. They then get on the freeways like we do, adding to public safety.

They have to pay for the gas, they have to pay for parking. Many times going to courts that they don't know where they are. They stand in those same long lines. The injured child has to take a day off of school where many times with remote access, they only miss one or two classes. If you look at from the injured child's perspective, it's scary, intimidating, and embarrassing for them.

They go into a minor's compromise hearing where there is a room full of people who have to hear about their injuries and they have to show their scars to the judge. This is intimidating for children. Remote access took that away, took all of that away. Our clients and our children. Our clients whose children get to sit in their home, next to their parents on a couch, and look only at a judge on the screen.

Lastly, being from the Inland Empire, I'd like to point out that there was a horrific snowfall last week and many of my clients are in Big Bear or Lake Arrowhead. If they have to come down the hill, they have to dig themselves out, go through icy roads, and it is dangerous. I know I'm out of time, so I will cut it short. We strongly, strongly support the use of remote access and ask that it continue.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rizio. So what we're going to do is we're going to ask the three panelists then to step back. We're going to bring on three new panelists, and then we're going to have questions and comments by Committee Members. But one observation is I'm really glad to see defense counsel and consumer attorneys in agreement, and this bodes well for the session. I assume that this will continue throughout the year. That's good. All right. Well, thank you.

And Judge Anderson, I'm going to ask a bit about, when we come back, about the survey. I know that the Judicial Council conducted a very comprehensive survey with respect to remote access and the empiric data gathered. So thank you. All right. So let's ask Mr. Ignacio Hernandez of The California Federation of Interpreters, Michelle Caldwell from the California Court Reporters Association and SEIU Local 521, and Ms. Lee Farron, Program Director for One Justice. So let's start with you, Mr. Hernandez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ignacio Hernandez here on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters, which is the statewide union for court interpreters in California. I should also just, full disclosure. I think many of you know, I also represent the California Court Reporters Association, the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, United Public Employees in this space. But I'm only speaking on behalf of the interpreters and these are the interpreters' perspective on the issue today. Let me start this way.

Interpreters have been trying to address and respond to remote proceedings, remote interpreting for years prior to COVID, there was a movement amongst many courts to put interpreters on video to be transmitted into courtrooms. And so this is a discussion that we have had for a long, long time. There were pilots that were conducted prior to COVID on remote interpreting, and the feedback was, if I remember correctly from one Judicial Council report, it was overwhelming support for remote.

But when you dug into the numbers, 40% of the actual individuals who relied on interpreters felt as if they got a lesser level of justice by having an interpreter remotely. So it's something to keep in mind that an individual who speaks a different language other than English, who has to rely on an interpreter, is having a very different experience. And interpreters have a very different experience than most of the court users and most of the court employees in a proceeding. And we have witnessed this.

And the reason is because interpreters have to capture, get every single word exactly. They have to know what is being said by whom at every moment in a court proceeding, and then have to provide that interpretation to the individual, as well as oftentimes have to stop proceedings if the individual cannot hear or if there's not proper understanding of what the words are. Let me just state, there have been a lot of problems that interpreters have experienced over the last few years with remote.

It has been technology issues, voices dropping, video dropping, noise in the background when someone appearing remotely, as well as the inability for the platforms that are being used to allow for the option of simultaneous interpretation and consecutive. That is a major issue for interpreters and interferes with the ability of limited English proficient individuals to understand what is going on in the courtrooms. Too many times the interpreters have been told by judges, do your best, just keep moving. That is not acceptable.

Oftentimes we talk about a gold standard for interpreting, but the CFI's perspective is there's not a gold standard. There's just a single standard, and that is that the individual interpreter and the individual who relies on the interpreter have to be able to communicate effectively. There has to be the ability to hear every single word at every moment from every individual. And right now, there are just too many problems. Can it be addressed? Absolutely. There are a number of things that can be done.

One is the technology has to be better. There has to be very specific protocols in place for an interpreter to speak up when there's a problem. There has to be ability to stop a proceeding if there is a problem. And when you consider all of the problems that the interpreters have experienced and the balancing it out, we think it probably needs to be limited. It can't be.

I think we heard one of the first witnesses speak about case management conferences. That's been in place, court call and being able to do that for efficiency when there's less at stake, then when there are problems, it's a little bit more of a balance. So let me be very clear. And Jenna Hudick was supposed to testify. Let me just state for her. She had something came up for her last night. She sat on the working group that made the recommendations on remote.

She did not vote in support of a lot of the recommendations. It was oftentimes outvoted and oftentimes felt as if the voice of interpreters, while heard, wasn't always listened to. And so I think moving forward, whatever we do with remote, let's make sure that we have to look at it very differently for the interpreter and also for the limited English proficient individual and how they are experiencing the court proceeding. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. Ms. Caldwell.

Good morning. My name is Michelle Caldwell. I'm an SEIU member and a member of the Board of Directors of the California Court Reporters Association. I've been a court reporter in California for 33 years, and the last 22 of those have been with the Superior Court in Santa Clara County. First, I wanted to thank the Committee for inviting me to speak today, and my comments apply to both civil and criminal proceedings. Most simply put, court reporters are the guardians of the record. Essentially, we're the courtroom historians.

If the reporter didn't hear it, it's gone forever. A flawed history of what actually happened. An inaccurate record is fundamentally essential to a fair justice system. During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts had no choice but to Institute remote proceedings in order to prevent the system from coming to a halt. Over these last three years, we've learned what is minimally required for remote proceedings in order to preserve the integrity of the record and what just doesn't work.

The same disruptions that interrupt remote meetings, of which most of us are familiar, poor Internet connections, microphone issues, outside distractions also interrupt remote court proceedings. But court reporters are keenly aware of every glitch, interference, and interruption because our jobs, in fact, our licenses, depend on it. We live by the syllable. And as each of us knows, a single word can change lives, outcomes, and the integrity of the record. A wrong or incomplete transcript denies justice and can strip a person's liberty.

Trial courts were provided with $33.2 million for technology for remote proceedings. Unfortunately, most have not provided the appropriate technology. Now, Santa Clara County Superior Court is an outlier and I'm fortunate that my court has worked with reporters to provide adequate equipment for remote proceedings. Many other courts have failed to even provide reporters with essentials and basics like remote access, screens, microphones, or adequate sound systems. Because of these failures, whether intentional or not, remote proceedings threaten the licenses of court reporters and the integrity of the record.

We can't fulfill our statutory obligations if technology interferes with our ability to maintain the official record. Remote proceedings deepen the divide between those with access to quality technology and those without, those who have and those who have not. Many court users don't have personal computers, adequate Internet access, or private spaces to participate in proceedings remotely. This inequity threatens fairness and access to justice for all Californians.

We're all familiar with glitches and interruptions during remote meetings, but during the Pandemic, most of us became accustomed to the convenience and the interruptions, too. But keep in mind, we aren't here to discuss remote meetings. We're here to discuss court proceedings, the foundation of our judicial system, and the lifelong impacts on Californians. We aren't interested in the gist of what someone said in a courtroom. It must be verbatim.

When it comes to the courts, we can't prioritize convenience over access to justice, and justice must prioritize fairness and accuracy and not simply convenience. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Ms. Caldwell, Ms. Ferrin.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members, my name is Lee Ferrin. I'm a Program Director at One Justice, a nonprofit organization in California working to strengthen the legal services sector's expertise and capacity to advance justice and equity. We believe equal access to justice is a basic human right. One Justice recently completed a project where staff and volunteers observed almost 500 remote court hearings in seven different counties, urban, suburban, and rural.

I will share lessons learned from the Court Watch Project, as well as input from advocates at legal services organizations across the state that have personal experience with or have observed remote court proceedings in the representation of low-income Californians. Overall, the remote hearing option has increased the ability of low-income Californians to achieve access to justice. Advocates have reported higher appearance rates because litigants miss less work, avoid traveling long distances, particularly in rural communities.

However, many low-income Californians have struggled, resulting in stress, frustration and ultimately adverse consequences in their legal case. Technology access is the primary challenge, but contested hearings and or when hallway negotiations are key to resolution of the case also create challenges.

Just a few recommendations. There must be consistency across the state if possible, but at least within a county court system. A single video platform should be used. Each county court system should maintain a single page on their website, clearly linked on the homepage, and in a handout provided by clerks and self-help that includes information needed to access remote hearings. If a courtroom has its own standing order, it must not contradict the court or statewide procedure.

Litigants should not have to call the courtroom to know how to attend a hearing. Courts must use clear, straightforward and consistent processes for requesting remote or in-person hearings. The information and the forms must be translated into multiple languages and must be accessible to all. Requests should be able to be made through the court's website or through use of a paper form. Court staff must be trained on how to manage remote appearance requests, the video software itself, and how to troubleshoot.

Multiple advocates noted they or their clients missed hearings because they were not admitted to the hearing, even when they logged in appropriately. Courts should admit everyone. Self-represented litigants may be utilizing technology that doesn't display their name as it appears in the court documents. There must be a live help phone number answered by a real person in real-time who can troubleshoot with a litigant, notify a courtroom if there are connection issues.

Many litigants are not tech savvy, and the stress of appearing in court can make litigants less able to handle technology challenges. Courts should allow attorney-client consultations and maybe even informal settlement discussions to occur during the virtual hearing through a court-facilitated breakout room so the proceedings are more efficient and streamlined. Courts should allow public access to otherwise open remote hearings through a live broadcast.

Future litigants may observe the hearing, increasing the chances that their hearing will go smoothly and the public will have the access to the courts required under the First Amendment and common law. Some courts are doing this now, but all courts must make this available. Out-of-state witnesses who appear remotely should be required to appear remotely within our state. At the very least, jurisdictional requirements must be upheld.

Courts must allow litigants ways to submit documents to the court either ahead of the hearing, during the hearing, electronically or otherwise. Courts should not require evidence to be submitted electronically, but if an electronic process is implemented, courts must provide assistance with combining, scanning, and uploading documents to the court. There are many challenges with interpretation, as my colleague has identified. Ideally, the interpreter would speak directly with the litigant to simultaneously interpret during the proceeding.

This alleviates issues advocates reported where interpretation was spotty at best, not because of the interpreter's fault, but because of technical issues. For instance, an interpreter only interpreted the judge and the litigant, not opposing counsel, so that the litigant was unable to meaningfully participate in the hearing. Courts must work with local libraries and community centers to provide trainings on remote appearances and provide space for litigants appearing remotely. Many legal services organizations set up remote court appearance toolkits and or created space in their offices for clients to appear remotely.

Courts and community partners can provide similar private remote appearance terminals. I appreciate the opportunity to share the challenges low-income Californians and their advocates face with remote hearings, as well as the opportunities that we have to improve the process. And I look forward to further discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Ferrin. I know Senator Wahab and Senator Wiener had questions and comments, so we'll now turn to the panel. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. Thank you guys for your, I guess, testimony. I did have a couple questions in particular with Ms. Caldwell. How can we help in regards to your particular position? From what I understand is that a lot of the court reporters are also very scared of losing their job if they miscalculate a word or assume what they've heard, number one.

And at the same time, what do you think that is needed to ensure that one, nobody loses their job, but then every word is documented.

Thank you for the question. I think it basically comes down to technology. We are seeing platforms across the state that are not uniform. There is no standard in a courtroom when it comes to remote appearances. Attorneys are appearing on a construction site, in bed, an expert witness getting on an airplane. There's no standard and there's no protocol. So all those outside interferences and nobody taking control of an environment is really fundamental. And it comes down to technology. We're all over the place.

Litigants are coming in via tethered cell phone, Internet access. And so there's no standard. That's where I think our fundamental problem lies.

Okay. And then Mr. Ignacio, and I apologize, I didn't catch your last name. I did want to ask in regards to DV and family law, the option for electronic recordings, I believe, also the translation. So I'm the daughter of immigrants. Right? And oftentimes it is young people who go in with their parents to help translate, especially for more obscure languages. Right.

And to provide a, let's say, interpreter, it often takes a significant amount of time that that interpreter may not be able to show up when is required. The cost is $3,000 to $5,000 if the individual family has to provide one for their particular language. What do you think needs to happen specifically to allow for electronic recordings, interpretation there, broader knowledge? For example, in hospitals, there's a number that can be called that interprets for the doctor or the nurse or whoever. Any suggestions? Any thoughts around that?

Thank you for the question. Thank you for the question. It may take me about half hour to answer all that, because I love these questions, and we've been talking about these issues for a long time. But let me just answer this way. There was a language access plan that was put together by the Judicial Council that asked all of these questions. In particular, what happens when there's an individual who speaks a language of lesser diffusion, I think is what the term that they use.

And I could tell you that the Union for Interpreters has always said for years that we should create protocols for remote interpreting for those languages of lesser diffusion when a court cannot prepare ahead of time, and that happens all the time. When I practiced, I had case where I could have settled as a criminal case, I could have settled it if we could just get an interpreter in there. We had to keep continuing the case.

So there may be ways to do that and plan that out. The challenge is what you describe as having a child or a family member interpret. That's the exact issue that we're trying to avoid. And that is something where back in 2002, this legislature adopted the California Interpreter Act specifically to create an employee workforce so that we didn't have an issue having to rely on independent contractors who wouldn't always be there in the courthouse.

And so we started hiring more court employees as interpreters so they could always be available, move from department to department. I can tell you what's happened with interpreters that over the last five years, and I've had discussions with others about this, there's been an increase in the independent contractors, and I'm not just speaking of languages of lesser diffusion.

It's been in major languages for those counties, which has created access issues and has ended up relying on individuals or family members who are not certified, probably shouldn't be interpreting for a family law matter because of the impacts on it. We can go on and on. So the answer of what we do is, one, the legislature allocated, I believe, it was $30 million to hire new interpreters in courtrooms employees. Very little of that money has been spent over the last two years, very little.

And we need to look at that and see what we need to do. I think two is if we can increase the employee workforce, then we have more interpreters available in court all the time that can be utilized. And I think if you're going to do remote, it should be what we have been saying for years. You do it for those counties that may not have an interpreter in that particular language.

And that exact situation where they didn't prepare ahead of time to have an interpreter, then you do remote. What they're talking about here is to do it for Spanish on a regular court appearance or whatever it is. That is not helping the limited English proficient individual. The one thing I should also mention, that there has to be communication between the attorneys and the individuals. And oftentimes the interpreters, when they're remote, one of the parties or attorneys remote.

It's very challenging to be able to provide the interpreter services between the attorney and the individual and the interpreter when one of them is remote. So that also has to be addressed.

So the last half of the panel that was here seemed almost on the same page in regards to technology has helped significantly and so forth. I'm a big tech enthusiast myself, but one of the concerns that I have is that to say that no tech mishaps happen is, I think, largely unfair. I think we sit in meetings where people are muted and the call gets dropped and so forth.

So to say that it's been smooth sailing for several years, considering that we also have a digital divide. Not only, I represent in the Bay Area, in our Bay Area, we have a digital divide, let alone the rest of California. Should there be a standard or some type of support to allow individuals, even at a more local level, or the quality of their technology support? So we're talking about utilizing Zoom a lot of the times. But people also don't have laptops.

They don't have strong wifi or broadband. They do not have the applications. They don't even understand the applications that they need to be able to participate. Any thoughts in regards to this specifically?

Is that for all of us, or just for myself?

Anybody who would like to answer?

Okay, I can answer for some of my other clients, too. But for interpreters in particular? Yes. I mean, I think technology, it has been a problem. There have been just countless examples where the technology failed because of that. The individuals that are remoting in it varies widely, the type of technology that they have, and I don't know how to control that. There are ways that maybe we can do that. I can mention, I'll mention this. I don't know if it's helpful or not.

There was a pilot project, I believe, in Fresno, to have remote appearances. I believe in traffic cases. And what they did is create a central, I think it was at city hall, and they created a room so that there would not be technology issues and people could go there.

And it was a shorter commute for people who lived in that area instead of having to go the other side of the county, we also ensured that the interpreter was physically next to the individual because that is the standard. But that was the way to control the technology externally. So I'm not sure how you do that for every court appearance. Internally, yes, there needs to be greater investment in the technology and standard and make sure that it works.

And also technology for the interpreter equipment that they use, that has also been lacking as well.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I don't have nearly as much experience as an attorney as the Chair, who is just incredible. I'm getting up there. But the Chairs had incredible breadth and depth of practice, which is very impressive. But I did practice law for almost 15 years in my prior life, before I was elected to the Board of Supervisors. And I conducted 15 jury trials, some of them very lengthy ones, and probably took or defended more than 1000 depositions.

That's just a ballpark estimate. I have no way of actually knowing, but when I got elected to office, I was very happy never, hopefully, perhaps never to have to take or defend deposition again. So I have some level of experience. I did not practice during COVID so I'm not going to pass myself off as an expert on remote depositions or remote court proceedings. But I do have some perspective on this, and I've had some robust conversations with many friends, lawyers, judges in San Francisco.

I know there is certainly a significant resistance by some judges and lawyers to have to go into court or have to be physically together for depositions. I think the California Supreme Court just recently started to occasionally hear some cases live, which I don't agree with that, but they're an independent co-equal branch. They're going to make whatever decisions they're going to make. I will say that I have significant concerns with broad-based default, remote proceedings. I have no problem whatsoever.

One thing coming out of COVID and I view this in terms of how we work or do meetings. It's great that we now sort of know how to do things remotely when we need to, when there's an issue, when it would be valuable. That's fantastic that we've learned how to do that. That's to the benefit of society in so many different respects. But I think having it as a broad-based default I personally think goes too far.

I think it's great for especially sort of smaller and preliminary kinds of proceedings, not forcing everyone to constantly come into court for minor matters. Shouldn't have to go into court when you're doing an application for an over-length brief or for certain kinds of case management conferences. It makes all the sense in the world. I think it makes sense to have flexibility, especially for geographic areas or weather-related issues or people where it's a really fundamental hardship.

I have no problem having courts have flexibility to be able to as needed. But I think going to a broad-based default, this is how our justice system is going to work, and the exception is going to be when we force people to show up. I think that, in my view, degrades both our civil and our criminal justice systems. And I, Ms. Caldwell. Thank you. You've stated so much more eloquently and comprehensively than I ever could. But we have all.

I mean, it's hard for me to even remember a time when we remember having a meeting on Zoom, remote meetings where there wasn't some sort of problem, at some point where someone didn't cut out, at some point where someone had bad wifi, when someone had, like, their neighbor was doing construction.

I've had that when all of sudden a, your upstairs neighbor is doing construction, and so you have to apologize to everyone and they can't hear you, or the internet connection isn't great, so you have to turn off your video because it's the only way you're going to be heard. And we all know, no matter what we do, people take meetings in inappropriate locations, whether it's walking down the street, I guess, maybe from bed or wherever, and we all do it.

Every single one of us is guilty of doing that. And I've tried to be more mindful about that, but we all do it because that's how remote tends to work. People like, I can do it from anywhere, I can do it from my car, can do it from anywhere, and it's a problem. We also know that the sound is not even if you have good Internet connections. I mean, this is why we no longer in the Senate allow remote lead witnesses. We eliminated that.

I think there's an argument to have some flexibility if you have a lead witness from the East Coast or whatever, but we eliminated it. And even before we eliminated, I remember telling my staff we should do everything we can not to have lead witnesses be remote because people pay less attention when the person isn't physically there. There are always sound issues. Even if the internet connection is good, it's just not as good sound quality.

And when we talk about lawyers or jurors or judges evaluating the demeanor of witnesses, I'm sorry, that does not work. It's a different scale. When you're doing that through Zoom, jurors have to be able to see and hear and really assess the credibility of witnesses, judges too, attorneys as well. When you're taking or defending a deposition, I think it's just a different quality. And so again, I'm not here to say I'm categorically against all remote participation for both depositions and courts.

And I know I'm probably irritating some of my friends in the bench, in the bar by making these comments, but I think it would be a mistake for our justice system to make this the default and to make it incredibly broad-based. So I just want to express that, and I know this is a tough issue and there's a lot of equities here, and I appreciate you hearing me out.

By the way, this is for the entire panel as well. And I know we can't have all six of you approach, but if I could ask that Mr. Cotter, Judge Anderson and Mr. Rizio, if you at least make yourselves available, if you have anything you want to add, we would welcome it. Senator Durazo.

Yes, thank you. A couple of my questions have to do with the funding that was mentioned here, because I've chaired the Sub Five, Senate sub five and over judicial system, and some issues were brought up about funding that was provided for remote technology equipment. And so my question is, what equipment are the courts utilizing for remote proceedings? And I think that was somewhere in the range of $33 million was provided. What equipment has been provided?

And I understand not all the courts have the equipment since the money was provided for that, especially during the COVID I would really like to, maybe Judge Anderson and others who have experience in the different counties, how do we make sure or what's the status of that?

I think that's a question for Judge Anderson.

Okay.

Right.

First, what I'd like to invite and suggest, especially to those that are Monterey County, and that would be Senator Laird and Senator Caballero. But any of you, I welcome you to Monterey County Superior Court to come and sit in on a remote proceeding. I'd be more than happy to host you so that you could see what it is and see what it's like and also be able to see the type of equipment that we are currently utilizing.

I think the vast majority of the courts are on Zoom because of zoom.gov. But within my particular department, I have what we call the double screens. We have wired, just every section of the courtroom is heavily wired so that you can pick up counsel, you can pick up witnesses, you can pick up participants, you can pick up folks in the jury box, you can pick up folks in the witness stand.

So we have done quite a bit in terms of improving technology, and all courts with whatever's been allocated to them are also doing the best that they possibly can to update equipment in order to make sure that audio issues are improved as well as visual issues. Currently, there are now a variety of cameras within the courtroom that I'm in from differing angles so that if you are on Zoom, you're not just stuck with just one face. You can see what's happening on the witness stand.

You could see what's happening inside the courtroom as well as see the judicial officer as well. So we are slowly but surely with funds that have been provided to the courts improving our technology.

So I guess my question, thank you very much, Judge. I appreciate that. It sounds like you've got a high standard in your courtrooms, is how do we make sure that gets done in all the courtrooms across California? Someone mentioned earlier that very little of the funding has been used to provide the equipment that's needed. I don't know. Ms. Caldwell, were you the one who mentioned that?

I was. I can tell you from a court reporter's perspective and what my court has done. Clearly, we're the courtroom of the Silicon Valley, so maybe we have access to more resources, but we have gone so far as to provide every reporter with a monitor on their desk that they can see all the participants in front of them, microphones, listening equipment, hardwired Internet access, and the ability to control the proceedings in as much as, as, you know, microphones are one dimensional.

So if you're speaking and you think you're making this great argument, nobody's hearing it anyway because somebody else is talking. So with that access, I can interrupt, I can mute somebody. So those are the kinds of things that we have done in our court that have helped reporters and the record.

And do you have any information about the, I know you represent statewide. Do you have any examples of across California? Is the same thing being done? Because I was advised that it's not being done equally and evenly across the state.

From my understanding, we are one of the few counties that does have those kinds of devices and equipment available for reporters in order to make a record.

Okay. And maybe Judge Anderson, at some point a report back to us about providing this kind of equipment since the money is there, give us a status as to why it's not being done evenly across the state.

Well, of course I'll be happy to look at its data. And I believe what's referencing is the modernization funding that has been provided in the last two budget cycles. And so money was allocated and spent on remote, but also went to upgrading systems as well. And so money that's provided to the judicial branch based on our funding allocations through the courts, we try to make sure it's equally divided up, and we're more than happy to look through our data and provide reports.

Thank you. Senator Min.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you for holding this hearing. I wanted to really associate my comments with those of my colleague from San Francisco. I thought you raised some great concerns. I think anyone here wants to be a Luddite and slow down the advancement of technology in California. We pride ourselves on that. At the same time, there are real concerns about access to justice we face when we talk about purely remote proceedings. I apologize for being late. I was at a broadband access hearing earlier that Energy is doing.

And that raises real concerns. We know that many communities don't have the same access to high-speed Internet. They don't have the spaces to professionally appear on a Zoom or something like that. So I think we have to think about these. When is this appropriate or not. I guess that's a comment. I had a couple questions, and this first one might be for you Honorable Anderson.

Do you think that right now, given the disparities in broadband access, that moving aggressively to online proceedings raises 14th Amendment equal protection concerns?

I wouldn't think so, to the degree, and I think what we all need to focus on remote proceedings is a choice, and voluntary. It is not forced. It is the litigant's choice to appear remotely. It is not the courts. And, Senator Umberg, you know more than anyone, because you authored 241. It is when certain conditions are present, and that means the consent of the parties and notice has been given that there are remote proceedings.

So, no, there is no one being forced to appear remotely, nor should anyone be forced to appear remotely. It is an avenue to access the court, and it's one way to access the courts. Anyone is welcome any day of the week to walk inside the courtroom and appear in person.

And I would say probably the vast majority of the appearances, depending on the calendar, in the civil calendar, a lot of the appearances for pretrial would be remotely, because it's far more cost-effective in the criminal world. I would say the vast majority of appearances in the criminal case types is in-person.

The case types that I do see where there's remote appearances is in the collaborative courts, and it's primarily with folks who are in residency programs, and you can see them all gathered around a particular table, and the camera goes to each one to make their appearances. But I would say that it is the choice of the court user with respect to remote proceedings and not a force.

I appreciate that. And I say this as someone who's married to, I think as a couple of panelists know, my wife works in domestic violence, and there are certainly places where remote might be better and preferable to in-person, and domestic violence proceedings might be one of them.

I guess my second question, I know we'll talk about this at a later panel, but I thought since we have a couple of people on the panel right now that might have some thoughts on this, given that one of the reasons we might consider moving to more remote proceedings is a shortage in court reporters, I thought I'd just ask if any of you had any insights on what you think is driving that shortage.

My colleague Stacey Gasket will talk about that more specifically later. I'm not sure that I would say that we have a shortage of court reporters as much as we have a recruitment and retention problem. When the courts did away with civil reporters in many counties and family reporters in many counties, the civil world, the privatization of court reporters became extremely lucrative, as I believe someone mentioned earlier. And so officials left courts and went to the private industry.

So in an effort to get reporters back to the courts, it does take money. It takes recruitment efforts. We have now included voice writers as certified shorthand reporters, and that will broaden our pool even more. If I can take a moment and go back to what Judge Anderson said about optional appearances, just to give a perspective in my own county, unfortunately, we have a deputy shortage, and because of that deputy shortage, our courtrooms are not open to the public, and so remote appearances are required.

There is no way for a litigant or an attorney to appear in person. And that's just, I understand it's an extreme example, but it does exist.

If I may address something for a second.

Sure.

From the practitioners, and I think the defense counsel will agree, from the practitioners perspective, there is a large shortage of court reporters. We have examples where we cannot, in my firm, I cannot get a court reporter to show up. There is just not enough to show up for a deposition. We have examples from our CAC Members that in the middle of a job, a court reporter will get up and leave because they're getting paid to be more somewhere else as a result of the shortage.

There's a large demand for that. In regards to what her honor indicated, it is voluntary to show up, and I would ask this panel to remember that it is the attorneys that have to do the appeal. It is the attorneys that have to make sure we do not commit malpractice by talking to the courts and making a clear record, be it with an interpreter or with a court reporter.

If I screw up a record, I'm the one who's going to have to deal with that on appeal. I'm the one who's going to be sued for malpractice, for not slowing down, talking clearly, making sure there was enough broadband. Every time I do an appearance, I make sure my clients have good broadband, because it makes sense to make sure, for my perspective and my malpractice, that that is done correctly. Certainly there are appearances where people are walking and using their phone.

That is something that has to be addressed standard-wise. Thank you, Senator Umberg.

Thank you. Did you want to comment?

Yeah, if I may. It is a serious problem, especially for trials where a court reporter cannot be found. We have found, some of our members have told us that $8,000 a day per diem, if you have a 10-day court trial, that's $80,000 that someone has to come up with, and it's a huge barrier. Do we like court reporters? We'd love to have it just the way it was, has been for decades.

It's fabulous to have a live court reporter there, but they're just not there, as I understand that the people applying for court reporter positions, they're not passing the test. It's very difficult. And a lot of the court reporters have been in the business for quite some time, are aging out. So it is a real problem. Would I love to have a live court reporter? Yes.

But especially for hearings and things like a summary judgment, motion hearing, you need to have a court reporter there, or else there is no record of appeal. And if there's no record, there's no appeal. And that's a real problem.

Thank you. Just a heads up. We're going to have a whole panel on the court reporter issue here coming up. That's okay. All right. Yes. Anyone else? Any other questions? I have a few questions. You've raised very serious concerns, Ms. Caldwell, and also Mr. Hernandez, about denial of access to justice and in terms of litigants who wish to appear but were denied the opportunity to appear because there was a forced, remote appearance. Is counsel raised that issue that their client, for example, couldn't appear?

I can't tell you that specifically because my court only employs criminal reporters, and so we don't have reporters in civil. I just know from my colleagues that, my reporter colleagues, that they're appearing remotely because the courtrooms are closed.

That's a very serious issue. And I'll ask Judge Anderson to ask judicial counsel to report, as to litigants, parties who wish to appear personally and are denied the opportunity to appear personally. It is one thing, as Senator Min points out, in terms of a constitutional right, to be able to be able to present and be present for the presentation of your case and evidence. So to the extent that that's going on in California, that's something for us to directly address.

And so I'd ask judicial counsel, if there's a portal, for example, where the judge and the counsel basically fail to do their job and fail to do their job to ensure that a litigant has an opportunity to appear personally, that there'd be an opportunity, at least for someone to report that to judicial counsel. That's a very serious issue. Same thing with respect to interpreters. That's a very serious issue.

Are you aware, any panelists aware of where a litigant said, I want to appear personally and the judge said, no, you may not appear personally. Any of you aware of that circumstance?

I'm not aware. I don't know if there are any courts. But I think that is what's fabulous about this particular hearing is this is not an either-or, yes or no, but this is, what are the best practices? What should we be looking at? What is going to best serve the public? And that would be something, I think that the Judicial Council would like to look at data because as you know, with respect to 241, it is at the consent of the court user.

And so whether an attorney is not making that point, that it is the consent of the user, and then the person should be permitted to appear personally. If there is a court issue with respect to bailiffs or what have you, that is something that should be addressed, but no one should be forced to appear remotely. The only circumstance where anyone was forced to appear remotely, that was during the pandemic when the courts were actually closed, but then folks were given the opportunity to continue cases out.

I know within our court, if there is a circumstance or situation where someone wishes to appear and our doors are open every day in-person, we give them that opportunity. So let's say your hearing is today, but there's a technical issue with whatever device you're utilizing, trying to join remotely. We give you another court date so that you can have the choice of either appearing personally or resolving whatever technical issues that you have.

You don't go ahead and just proceed with the hearing because someone has a technical issue. And I believe also there is a publication that the council has put out, and that's best practices for judicial officers for proceeding on remote hearings that was put out by the Center for Judicial Education and Research.

So there are some best practices out there that I would invite my friend from Santa Clara to make sure that your judges read the best practices with respect to appearing remotely, because the periodical is out and it does cover the statute with respect to consent appearing remotely.

And I associate myself with the comments of my colleague from San Francisco that this is much different than a Zoom meeting. I'm going to have a Zoom meeting this afternoon. Consequences are small, if any. If there's not proper connection, if there's not technology, be able to communicate effectively, whereas someone's life, liberty, or treasure is on the line when you're talking about litigation. So another question for all the panelists. Has a court denied the opportunity when there's been a court reporter that's available in person?

Of course, any practicing lawyer would prefer to have a court reporter there in person. Has there been an incident in California that you're aware of where the judge has said, I'm sorry, we have a court reporter who's present and available, but we're going to do this remotely? Is anyone aware of that?

I haven't heard. I will defer if anyone else has had any information with respect to that. I don't know why. Because you would take that in-person court reporter.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, well, let me, let me go back to my previous question, Mr. Hernandez. Did you want to respond?

Oh, just as far as interpreters, we have had that scenario where the courts have established that it's going to be by remote and whether it's not at the request of the parties or anyone else. So it's slightly different because the court reporter. Different dynamic. But interpreters have been told that it's going to be remote that day in that courtroom, and it hasn't necessarily been at the request of the party.

And the council didn't object or did object, and the court, over counsel's objection, said, I'm sorry, we're not going to allow the interpreter to be present, physically present?

My understanding, because it's based on what my clients have told me, we've had many discussions about this. It has simply been the procedure for that department for that day that the interpreter would appear remotely, and so there wasn't necessarily an opportunity to object or consent. For interpreters, it's infrequent when they're asked to consent to the interpreter appearing remotely.

No, I'm talking about counsel, though. Counsel who's responsible for the representation of client. That would be important for us to know about where the court has said, I'm sorry, that there's either a court reporter or an interpreter who is physically available and present, and I'm going to preclude, prohibit, forbid that interpreter or that court reporter from being physically present. That would be useful for us to know.

Happy to get some of those stories. And my understanding is that that has, in fact, occurred.

Okay. Thank you.

May I speak briefly on that as well?

Yes, Ms. Ferrin.

I will say the other challenge is self-represented litigants, because they don't have a counsel who's going to object. And we have had clients who've defaulted in hearings because they appeared at the courthouse and were told, sorry, it's on remote, and they couldn't get to a place to appear in time for the hearing, and instead they just, the ruling went against them. So it does happen.

I do think it's the exception and I think it's specific courtrooms, as Mr. Hernandez mentioned, that there's certain courtrooms that maybe have decided today is remote and that's your only choice. You have to appear. But it does happen.

All right, well, we need to have that information. So I'm sorry, Ms. Caldwell, did you respond also?

I was just going to say that I haven't experienced that unless it's a matter of an attorney has hired a privately hired reporter and the live reporter would be dismissed in exchange for the remote reporter that's been hired privately.

Without the consent of counsel.

No, I don't mean without the consent of counsel. I just mean that a remote reporter would then take over for a live reporter, but only under that kind of circumstance, in my experience.

All right. And you had mentioned there are instances where basically the court has permitted someone to testify while in bed, testify doing all kinds of other things. We're interested in that because that seems to be an abrogation of the judge's responsibility to make sure that a trial is conducted with the appropriate demeanor and opportunity for each side to be heard. So that would be useful information for us to gather, too, is where both the judge as well as counsel have basically abrogated their responsibility. All right.

So any other, yes Senator Wahab or Senator Wiener? Senator Wahab first. And Senator Wiener. Oh, ok. Let me turn to Senator Wiener.

Thank you. I think actually the Chair asked an important question and Judge Anderson asked, and I felt like you were maybe lining up about, are there situations where the parties or a party want to do it in person, but the judge's courtroom is just closed. And so parties are effectively forced to do it remotely even if they don't want to.

And also when you have disputes, like you have a party that wants to be live, another party that doesn't want to be live, is that just the discretion of the judge?

Well, Senator Wiener and Senator Umberg, you've been to a court where the judge hasn't been there that day, and they have a clerk's calendar. I'm sure those things do happen. I am unaware of that, but I am sure that happens. Yeah.

I'm not talking about minor stuff. I'm talking about more significant. Are there situations where a party is like, whatever the hearing might be, something significant and they want it to be live, but the court says no, closed today, you have to do it remotely.

Your Honor, excuse me, Senator.

Whatever you prefer.

Old habits die hard. I have not experienced that. Sometimes you may get a clerk on the line that they might prefer that you'd not be in the courtroom. But I've never seen any pushback from a Superior Court about coming in. I've done pretrial conferences, and I've been the only attorney there out of a multi-party case, I just, you know, I'm in Sacramento. I prefer to be there, but I haven't had any pushback in terms of a live appearance. And I think you have to allow that.

If there's a court appearance and someone wants to appear personally, let them. And maybe that solves a lot of the technology problems.

Right. I am interested in knowing what's happening around the state. Are there situations where judges are just saying, we're doing this remotely, and maybe that's not happening at all. But I also know from my time practicing that judges tend to make the rules in their courtroom. And there's a broad spectrum of how judges like to conduct proceedings. And so it wouldn't shock me if that was happening, but maybe it's not. And so I'd just like to know.

We can ask our members.

All right, well, we're going to turn to Ms. Ferrin, did you want to say something very briefly?

I think some of it is also not necessarily the judge making the decision, but the process by which litigants have to share their opinions on whether it would be remote or in-person. There's a statewide form, but then some courts have adopted a secondary local form that also has to be submitted. There's rules about how it gets submitted, when it has to be submitted by. And obviously, we should follow those rules.

But also in cases of emergencies or especially dealing with self-represented litigants. I think some consistency and some clarity on how a person requests to be in person or requests to be remote is important.

All right, so. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Durazo.

Just the last comment after hearing everybody, and it was interesting to hear from some of you who said, remote is perfect. It's the most beautiful thing in the world, and we can't live without it. And then there are those who are saying, wait a minute, this is really, really difficult.

I understand on the issue of choice that people ought to have the ability to choose, but I know that if you're a poor person, if you're a person of color, you can be easily intimidated by the whole courtroom scene. I don't know how people who don't have the confidence to speak up to say, I want it done remotely or I want it done in person. That's really difficult situation to put people in. And so it leaves me with a sense of what sounds really nice.

Oh, let people choose if they want it or not, but their reality is completely different from ours, and I just think we have to keep that in mind. I appreciate the day in the life of a regular person taking off work and doing all of that sort of stuff. Well, just extend that all the way into the courtroom. What's it like for that same person to have to speak up or speak out and saying that they don't imagine taking on a judge?

I mean, even I would be scared to death to take on a judge. No, I disagree with you. So I think that's the real world that we have to keep in mind as we go forward with these policies.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you very much, it's been very enlightening. This is a new space for me, but I've learned a lot today. I did want to make a comment because I respect my colleagues expertise. They are the experts in this space. But I really appreciate it. Just wanted to comment that I appreciated Mr. Cotter's, I believe it was your comments with regards to making a differentiation between which ones should be in person versus which ones could have the option of being virtual.

And that was, I believe you said, the ones that had witnesses.

Yeah. Your honor. There we go again. Your honor. Senator, would be. I was referring to jury trials, but there could be other proceedings that have life testimony where a witness, whether it be an expert, I think the opposite party should have a right to say, you need to be in court, and I need to be able to confront you. Those are the situations where they're taking live testimony, where I think that witnesses need to be required to be there and should not.

If, on the request of the party, they should be there. Can parties agree to stipulate to something? I think that's fine. There might be foundational witnesses, like a police officer or something that's just laying a foundation for something. And that might be fine to do remotely, and the parties can stipulate to that.

But there's other ones where people are offering very key testimony or expert testimony, and those litigants should have the right to say, you need to be here in person because we need to observe you.

Thank you, Mr. Cotter.

All right. Sure.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Another question and that had to, I think it's Mr.

Rizzio? No, I'm sorry. I think it's you. I'm sorry. I'm trying to find your name.

I'm not on the agenda.

Zero, you're not on the list. I apologize. I had a question with regards to the comment that you made about the allocation. I believe it was you that made the allocation of the monies but had not been fully spent. I'm kind of curious to know what has been spent and why hasn't the money been spent within your space?

Sure. Thank you for the question. If I may, I was referring to the money that was allocated by the Legislature, I believe, two years ago, specifically for court interpreters. And it was a $30 million allocation work with Senator [ineligible name] and others on it.

I believe 18 million of it was for courts to convert independent contractor positions to employee positions for interpreters to make sure that they're just more available, widely available, so you don't have some of the issues that you have with some of the court reporters. And 12 million was for certain counties to hire interpreters to work throughout the courthouse, whether it's a self help desk or otherwise, to help individuals navigate the courthouse.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was a one month or two month period where applications were allowed to be submitted by courts, and a lot of courts did not apply. In fact, I can't remember how much money it was. I want to say it was about a million out of the 30 million or a million out of the 18 million that was allocated or that it was applied for. So there's a lot of money that's still available.

There is, I think, another two year period to spend that money. So there's still time, but the way that it's going doesn't look like that money will be spent. And so that means that we're missing the opportunity to fill courtrooms with interpreters, live interpreters, to handle some of these cases. So I'm happy to get more specific information on those dollars.

I don't have it with me today, but it is something we are very concerned about and we'll probably be coming back specifically on that issue to find ways to get that money out. We had to do the same thing with the court reporter dollars that were allocated to 30 million each year. Not to speak for my other clients, but I know we had those challenges and actually had to tweak some of the budget language to make sure that money got out.

But it is something we have to look at because it's money sitting there that's not getting out.

Interesting.

All right. Thank you.

Other questions.

One last question, and I believe this one goes to Ms. Caldwell. Ms. Caldwell, I'm just kind of curious. It's very interesting to see the obstacles that the court reporters are facing, but one of the things that kind of caught my attention is you were mentioning the point where people have sometimes missed words or how words have power. Has the ability to record the Zoom meetings helped at all within that endeavor? I know not, obviously, when people drop from the meetings, but are the meetings recorded?

Can that help at all with capturing every word?

Well, when there's a court reporter, there is not recording happening. So electronic recording is in place of a court reporter. And I can tell you that just from a practicality standpoint, if I don't hear something, generally, I know what I've not heard. If somebody coughs while you're talking, I can see that you're talking, and I can stop and interrupt. But adversely, an electronic recorder doesn't know what it didn't hear, so it's gone.

So as far as recording the reporter live, who can take control of a situation and stop speakers will always win over electronic recording for that reason alone.

Senator, if I may, the government code prohibits in civil court any recording, so it has to be by court reporter. There is talk about changing that, but the government code says you are not allowed to tape, record or record in a court.

Trouble in federal court.

All right.

All right, well, let me thank the panel. We're going to come back to some of these issues here in just a little while. So, and I take your comment, Senator Dorasso. Maybe we consider actually making it mandatory for those who are not represented by council to appear personally. Let's turn now to the next panel concerning criminal proceedings. Of course, that's a different situation because of the confrontation clause in the US Constitution. So I'm going to turn it over to Senator Wahab.

Thank you, Senator Umberg. Our first panel will discuss the use of remote technology in criminal cases from the perspective of counsel. I'm going to invite all three panelists up. Our first panelist is Ricardo Garcia, the chief public defender of LA County on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Our next panelist is also Michael Furman, a chief assistant District Attorney for San Bernardino county on behalf of the California District Attorney's office, as well as Stephen Munkelt, the Director of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

All right, and we will start with Mr. Garcia. I also just want to be cognizant of everybody's time. And so when we do have questions, if we can be concise and to the point. Thank you.

Good morning, and I appreciate the time being here to the Committee, to the chairs, thank you for giving me this opportunity. One of the advantages of sitting and listening and being 7th or 8th to speak is you get to hear what people say. And while I have prepared words, I wanted to talk a little bit about what I did here. That sort of has colored my thinking about this generally, as I've sat here today, and that is, we're doing this maybe a little bit backwards.

The one consistent statement I've heard from all of the witnesses is that technology isn't there, that the lack of uniformity in technology, whether in civil and criminal, whether in Los Angeles or Contra Costa or Monterey, creates a disparity in access to justice for the litigants in the criminal arena. That's an impossibility. That just can't happen.

And so if you're in Santa Clara and Monterey, where the technology is really good, and when you have clear access and the technology has been placed in a way that every litigant can have access, the question isn't as concerning as to the availability or the quality, but in other locations where that technology isn't readily available, we are inherently denying people fair access.

So before I think we really talk about whether or not remote hearings are appropriate or how they're appropriate, we need to create the infrastructure so that the beginning of them can be looked at evenly, fairly, and you don't have to worry about whether a constituent in one part of the state has equal access to the technology that a constituent has in a different part of the state. So that's where I wanted to sort of pick up from what I'd heard from the different speakers.

As the public defender of Los Angeles County, I have the benefit of seeing a very large system at work, a system that in many ways is like a state public defender, in that our access to technology and what's available across one part of Los Angeles can be very different than what's available on the other side of Los Angeles.

And within the criminal legal system, we do look at ways to improve the process for our clients, because someone who practices in Pomona, let's say, and has clients in Pomona, their client may be coming from another part of the county, and that trip could be incredibly burdensome on the family, as we've heard before. And so we look at ways to improve that. But we also have to understand is in the criminal legal system, we're not talking just about dollars.

We're talking about people's liberty and an error in what somebody hears, an error in someone's access, an error of any type, could result in incarceration.

And it doesn't just mean in a jury trial, in any adverse proceeding where a person doesn't have the ability to confront and cross examine the witness against them and the judge who is the trier of fact, not only evaluating the physical evidence presented to them or the evidence that may lead to one answer or the other, but also the credibility of the witness. And I think it's important to understand that remotely, that credibility just can't be measured in the same way it is live.

We sit here live because we look at human beings and look for what we might consider tells in what they're saying. We look for their demeanor. We look for things that we as human beings, in understanding and measuring their credibility, we've come to trust. We ask jurors to do that. We ask jurors to take their life experience and assess the credibility of a person. We expect judges to do the same thing, and remotely. There's too much possibility, quite frankly, for cheating.

A judicial officer can't tell if the witness is reading a preprepared script when they should be testifying spontaneously. A judicial officer can't tell if the person is being coached by someone off screen, which would not be able to be possible in court. Now we talk about, does that happen? Could that happen? Of course it would, particularly when we're talking about liberty. We're talking about emotions that happen in trials or in nontrial hearings, preliminary hearings.

We're also talking about situations where the court can't determine whether the facts presented to them are the facts as remembered by that witness. The court can't determine whether or not those facts aren't already pre prepared by one of the litigants, by a counsel, whether it be defense counsel or the prosecution. We see examples of coaching witnesses in actual live proceedings. We have objections and ways to stop that and prevent that, allowing the judicial officer to respond immediately. That's gone. In a remote hearing.

There is no way for a judge to determine if a witness on the other side of the screen is testifying by his or her recollection, which is what they have to do, or by pre prepared testimony or script provided by their own counsel or the council to their side. And I've seen this in live proceedings or attempted to be done in live proceedings. I can only imagine it would happen in remote proceedings.

The last thing I want to mention about this process is that we are not creating, we shouldn't be looking at a system that is convenient for the actors, for the lawyers, for the judges, or for the witnesses. We're looking at a system in the criminal legal process that is about the accused protecting the accused rights. And so when we establish remote processes for the convenience of the other parties, for the lawyers or the judicial officers, we're forgetting the person who the system is designed to protect.

And I know we talk about witnesses, and I know we talk about victims in cases, and they are important partners in this process. But ultimately, the 6th amendment, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in the criminal legal system is about the accused and protecting his or her right. And we shouldn't forget that for convenience or for expediency. And there was a question asked to the last panel.

If there are examples of situations where the court forces remote proceeding against the objection of counsel, and the answer to that is yes. One of my own attorneys in a mental health proceeding, in asking for the determination of whether a person was mentally capable of proceeding to trial in a capital case, wanted her client to be present. Her client wanted to be present, but the judge denied that. She appealed it. But the point is, at that point in time, the client wanted to be there.

The counsel wanted the client there. And after the proceeding, when they inquired, the client had no idea what had occurred, could not hear appropriately, could not tell what had happened.

Thank you, Mr. Fermin.

Good morning, Senator. Well, okay. Sorry. Not used to that. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. My name is Michael Fermin. I'm the chief assistant District Attorney in San Bernardino. County. I serve on the California District Attorneys Association board directors. I was also on the Judicial Council's CCP 367.9 working group for which recommendations were provided to this body as a result of review of remote technology in courtrooms as it applies to the criminal proceeding.

I think on this matter with the public defender, we firmly believe that these need to be done in live hearings. I did practice during the time of Covid-19 and it was problematic in terms of making sure that we had certain hearings that were done remotely, and we did that during COVID I recognize that AB 199 has extended some sections of emergency rule three to criminal matters, and that's codified in penal code Section 977, specifically, and to some extent 977.3.

To the issue of whether or not matters, especially involving witnesses, should be live, the concurrence of all of my colleagues are that they should be. They should be live for the reasons that are articulated that it is a 6th amendment protection. We are comfortable having a court evaluate the credibility of all witnesses live.

We recognize that there are times where a court may, within certain penal code and evidence code provisions, as well as the California Supreme Court rulings, may permit some individuals, under limited instances, if a threshold is met, permit them to testify remotely. But as a General rule, we don't believe that that should be a General rule as it applies to criminal matters. I can speak to the fact that we also handle juvenile justice delinquency matters.

I can tell you that when we talk about some of those proceedings during the Covid-19 period of the emergency orders, we saw that there was a lot of informality related to that. Sometimes individuals were making calls from phone calls from phones while driving. And we certainly do not think that that's good for the cause of justice as it applies to litigation on any matter in the criminal justice arena.

I would concur with my colleague here that there needs to be, if there are remote proceedings, remote proceedings should have certain guidelines, guidelines related to its use, guidelines related to who may use it under what circumstance. I echo the concerns about access to justice. I think that it's not just access of the public, but especially the litigants. And when remote technology may negatively affect that, then the default must and should continue to be in the courtroom.

The 367.9 working group gave a fair number of recommendations to the Legislature about some standard practices that should be considered. I don't need to go over them. I think you've heard many of them. But I will end with basically this is when it comes to the need for being in the courtroom.

I can say that with the exception of two days, the 17th and 18th in my county, the rest of the time we were live, we had lawyers appearing in court, we had lawyers contract Covid while in the courtroom, we did not have jury trials for about four months during the emergency orders that prohibited them. But the moment that that order was lifted, it required us to go back to that process of being alive in the courtroom.

I would end with the Supreme Court in Edmondson versus Leesville cement. My colleagues, who are prosecutors and defense attorneys, know the significance of that case. And in that opinion, the court made very clear that few places are a more real expression of the constitutional authority of the government than the courtroom where the law itself unfolds within the courtroom, the government invokes its laws to determine the rights of those who stand before it in full view of the public.

And for me, I still think that being live in a courtroom is the best place to handle criminal matters. We recognize that there may be a need, as the Legislature has seen in penal code Section 977, for some limited appearances with consent of the parties. But we don't see going further than that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Munkelt.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Wahab and chair Umberg. I'm Stephen Munkelt, currently serving as Executive Director of the California International Criminal Justice. CACJ is the statewide Association of criminal Defense attorneys, including private counsel, public defenders and other appointed attorneys. I have been representing. I've been practicing California for 45 years, first in San Diego and currently in Nevada City. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.

Speaking for the defense bar, we are committed to the principle that remote video proceedings must not interfere with constitutional rights to due process, fair trial, cross examination and confrontation, for these are the tools which support the accuracy and reliability of court proceedings. If the use of remote technology is not carefully limited, we fear the reliability of the courts will suffer with more innocent people convicted while more guilty persons go free.

I will give a brief overview of our experience with remote technology and then outline some principles we think should guide legislation in this area. All attorneys, civil or criminal, appreciate the ability to make routine scheduling appearances and the like without drive time, parking fees, and being trapped in a courtroom for hours while other attorneys handle their matters.

Civil attorneys have had this option for decades with court call, but defense attorneys and prosecutors have had the first taste of this over the last three years when the rights of the accused to be present and to be present with counsel are protected. This works quite well, but the procedures have varied from county to county, and we need some statewide plan that people can rely on and apply everywhere.

Court appearances for trials, evidentiary hearings, and legal argument emotions pose a very different problem than those routine scheduling appearances. In each of these circumstances, the court or a jury is called upon to evaluate the credibility, character and reasoning of witnesses and counsel. It is well documented that any barrier between people interferes with communication. It including the evaluation of credibility. Evolution has fine tuned our brains for judging the person across the table, but not the person in another city through a television screen.

The technology also has limits. If there's a bad connection, external noise, or other issues, then the case should come to a halt because we cannot guarantee the fairness and accuracy of the proceedings if the communication is interrupted. If we cannot hear a witness or counsel or the reporter or interpreter cannot do their job properly, then the case and its outcome may be jeopardized. With those observations in mind, we have three recommendations for the principles to enshrine in the law.

First, an accused person should never be required or forced to appear remotely. A waiver of the right to be physically present should always be free and voluntary. There will also need to be clear standards to prohibit coercion in obtaining a waiver of appearance. For example, one of the things we have seen is the jailer telling an inmate, if you go to court today, you lose your privileges or you lose your housing. There needs to be something to prevent that from happening and getting a waiver.

Two, there should be a strong preference for all witnesses to testify in court with the judge, attorneys, and defendant all present. When it is proposed that a witness testify remotely, it should be allowed only with the consent of the accused. This is required in many situations by the right to confrontation. And thinking about cross examination, which Dean Wigmore described as the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of the truth.

Cross examination simply can't serve its true purpose for either side of a case if the witness isn't in the room with the attorneys and the fact finder. Third, if there is a technology problem or other issues during a remote appearance, there should be clear direction how it is to be handled, either by requiring personal presence or rescheduling. Delays, unfortunately, often punish a defendant, but the alternative undermines the integrity and reliability of the proceedings. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. CACJ and I are willing to assist in any way in crafting the just rules for this issue.

Thank you. Any Members... Senator Ashby.

Thank you, Chair Wahab and Chair Umberg. I'm sorry, I'm running, one of many running between committees, but I could see how this could be a very different argument between civil and criminal cases. But let the record reflect that the District Attorney, the Public Defender, and even the Defense Bar agree in this particular case that in criminal cases... It was very compelling, what you said, Mr. District with Public Defender, Los Angeles, right?

Yes.

Garcia?

Correct, Ricardo.

Garcia. That our number one goal has to be protecting the right of due process. That has to come first in criminal court. There's a lot on the line that doesn't have anything to do with people's convenience and that we can't make convenience more important than people's freedom. I can see, however, as defense counsel mentioned, that there could be some instances that maybe we've even learned during Zoom that might be helpful.

I also agree that they would probably be pretty rare and that they would require special circumstances. I'm thinking in particular of children who are victims who potentially may be safer by remote testimony. But I think a judge would clear that anyway if you agreed and came forward. So I just want to thank you guys for being here on the panel.

I really wanted to just speak and say that I'm glad that we're hearing from you because I think you're showing a very different and important part of the dialogue from the civil discussion, which is a very different proceeding. It's not about somebody going to prison potentially for life. And that needs to be the primary concern in every criminal case is that every precaution is taken to protect people's freedoms and make sure that they get a fair and unbiased trial. And I appreciate very much that you have all taken the time to come to Sacramento today.

Thank you. Senator Min.

Thank you for your testimony. I really also found it very informative. I actually took the bar exam last year and I passed, which is why I didn't read about it in the newspapers. I think this obviously raises important questions around basic constitutional rights when we talk about anyone's potential life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And I had a couple of questions.

First, are there any cases right now winding their way through the courts where you might have people challenging the constitutionality of any sentences that were handed down because any part or parts of the criminal proceedings used remote proceedings? Because I really could see 5th and 6th Amendment concerns being raised, particularly on the right of confrontation that you mentioned, but some other concerns as well. And I mentioned the 14th Amendment earlier, but I do think there's an equal protection argument that plays into this. So I'm just curious, I'm not following this area, but are you aware of any litigation that might play into what we're talking about here today?

I haven't heard of any in particular, but we have discussed this issue. And during the pandemic, when some individuals felt that their 6th Amendment right to trial was abrogated by the orders that were put in place and their continuous extension that that may be taken up by appellate counsel. But as of today, the writs that we filed in Los Angeles, none were successful during the pandemic.

I am unaware of any as well. I can tell you that, during the height of COVID, there were no jury trials that were occurring. None of my colleagues did remote jury trials, as we all think that that would be potentially violative of the 6th Amendment.

I can say that during dispositional hearings where case settlements occurred and dispositions occurred, even in a remote setting, most of our colleagues, we worked closely with the public defender to ensure that, if they were going to have remote appearances of their clients from a jail facility, that those would be done in a way in which each of their clients had the ability to speak to their attorneys.

If a plea was worked out and paperwork was provided, that paperwork would be commenced in the jails and then sent to the courts for review so that all the parties would be able to look at it before the court took the plea. We tried to take great care during the pandemic to make sure that those dispositions occurred as close as they would have been if they were in the courtroom live.

Thank you. And I had a follow up question. I think this is directed particularly at Mr. Garcia, although the others can answer it as well. You know, when we think about criminal proceedings across the state, across the country, one of the challenges that we often talk about, that's the top of mind, is adequacy of representation. We know that many public defenders offices are severely underfunded. There's a lot of pressure on them to settle. And I wonder if.

I guess my instinct, but I haven't thought about this as much as you all have, is that when we have more remote proceedings, whether they're for misdemeanors or for parts of different proceedings, that there will be more pressure on PDs to settle cases. There'll be more pressure on them, particularly, not the good ones. And I know there's a lot of good ones out there. I have many friends who are PDs, but there are some folks out there that are overworked, maybe challenged.

And so we do often see inadequacy representation issues. Maybe not as much in California, but certainly around the country, and certainly in areas that have more poverty, we see that as well. So I guess I was just wondering if you could comment on that. And does this maybe have some impact, potentially, that you can see on adequacy of representation?

Yeah. Without sort of taking a left hand turn into a much larger topic with regards to the appropriateness or adequacy of resourcing the public defenders across the state or the lack of resources. I will say this. Whenever you have systems in place that are designed to expedite the process for the convenience, whether it's of the bench or of the lawyers, you do have an incentive for something to go wrong.

When judges or trial lawyers, whether it be the prosecutors or the defense attorneys, and we'll say the ones who might be more susceptible to this, feel pressures to get through things quicker, then you have more room for error. And we don't want to create a process which creates that possibility of error when we don't have to.

Thank you. Senator Umberg.

Thank you. Thank you. A couple questions. One, with respect to, first to defense counsel, and, oh, by the way, in terms of pressure, having been on the other side of public defenders in California, I think that they do an excellent job, and I've not seen them actually feel pressure to expedite things in order to get something done. I think the pressures are more acute with respect to private defense counsel. But just an observation. But there is a disparity.

I think that there is a disparity in resources. Generally, there's a disparity in resources between the defense and the government. And the question to defense counsel is, can you envision circumstances where you would like to call witness absent the consent of the prosecution? So let me give you two examples. One, an alibi witness that's located out of state, or two, an expert witness that's located out of state where you want to present that testimony remotely.

Maybe you can't even access that witness via subpoena. But the government says, no, you must produce that witness. And so if we're going to require consent to both sides, can you envision a circumstance where the court could find that the defense may actually call a witness remotely over the objection of the government?

I think, as Senator Ashby indicated, and as counsel indicated, there are exceptions within the penal code that do allow the court to assess on a case by case, individual by individual analysis, to make the determination as to whether or not in that specific circumstance, under that specific case, it's appropriate for the witness to appear remote.

We most often hear that with regards to juvenile witnesses, minors in very ugly abuse cases, for example, where the court finds that, at that particular moment, the minor could appear remotely or is prerecorded subject cross examination during that pre recording. The issue is the ability to cross examine the witness to quest for truth. So I think it would be a case by case, and the penal code already provides for those exceptions.

The exceptions where defense, where the government objects to calling a witness remotely, and you say...

No, we have to bring our witness. They have to bring the witness in. We have to bring our witness. It's been a while since I've litigated that aspect.

But, so, for example, let me turn to other counsel here, where you want to call a witness remotely, the government objects, says, we will not consent.

So there's a line of US Supreme Court cases which basically says if there's a critical need for the defense to present a particular witness, that need overrules state rules of evidence and procedure. So that the hearsay rule, for example, may be passed over if the defense demonstrates the real need. So there is a constitutional basis to overcome a statute that creates the kind of barrier and problem that you're describing.

However, in an individual case, arguing the Constitution allows me to overrule a statute with a trial court judge is not likely to succeed very often. So it would be best to have some way that the court, within a statutory framework, that the court has some discretion based on the same principles that are in the constitutional law.

So since we're going to potentially write the law, I want to understand you correctly. You're suggesting that we should provide for opportunities for defense to call witnesses remotely if the court makes certain findings. Is that accurate?

Yes.

Let me turn to Mr. Garcia.

Senator, I'm not sure yet. I have a discomfort with the general idea of not providing those witnesses in court for the reasons we've previously described. I know there are other constitutional exemptions to that, but again, the argument with a Supreme Court judge doesn't go very far when you throw the Constitution is a larger object. I would have to look at that more. I want to be candid. I just have to look at that more carefully. I don't want to answer that off the cuff and speak for all my colleagues in that respect.

He still has a line of questioning.

I just want to say I think that's a really critical question, and I'm glad you're asking it, and I hope you will think about it, because I think that's key. When we rewrite this, I think that would be necessary to include, to provide the judges the opportunity to hear that argument without defense having to use the Supreme Court decision.

Senator Umberg, as to your specific question, 977.3 would prohibit a defense attorney calling a witness at present, as currently stated, without the approval of the District Attorney, which I disagree. And I do believe that modifications should be made to 977.3 B that permit certain already constitutionally recognized exceptions and standards, most notably Maryland versus Craig, which allows a court to make that evaluation whether or not a witness may appear remotely in a limited instance.

But there's a burden of proof that's required there. And in People versus Powell, for example, that is abuse of discretion review. So there's a review process already in place here in California. If that occurs. However, that's not currently in 977.3.

All right. Well, if defense counsel thinks it's appropriate for us to provide the opportunity for the court without reverting to constitutional arguments in the code to make certain findings, we'd be interested as to what you think the criteria should be. So thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to our next presentation, so I thank you guys for your participation. Our fourth panel will discuss the use of remote technology in criminal proceedings from a court operations standpoint. So I will be calling the Honorable Maria Lucy Armendariz, Judge of the Superior Court of California for the County of LA. Our second panelist is Honorable Lawrence Brown, Judge of the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento. And our third panelist will be Cory Salzillo, the Legislative Director of the California State Sheriff's Association. I will start with you, Honorable Armendariz.

Good morning still, Members of the Committee. My name is Lucy Armendariz. I'm a judge in LA County. I'm also a member of Judicial Council, and I'm also a member of the California Access to Justice Commission. But for me, it's a little bit of a home week, homecoming, so to speak. I used to sit up there where Mary Kennedy is sitting, where I was attorney in Public Safety. I was also an attorney in the Assembly Public Safety.

Before I was appointed judge, I was Chief of Staff to the Senate Majority Leader. So here in the Senate is where I grew up, so to speak. And I remember before I left to always remember to do the right thing and to never, ever forget the constituents we serve. And in that vein, I will say that the remote proceedings is about equal access to justice if the person requests it. And I was asked to speak about my experience as a criminal judge in LA County.

And I would say that, for me, I've been able to use remote proceedings to ensure that equal justice is for everybody involved in the criminal justice system. For example, some people are ordered to appear in my courtroom in downtown LA at 8:30 in the morning for arraignment. Getting to downtown from anywhere in LA County can easily take an hour during tough traffic commutes. That is further exasperated by people who usually do not have a car or have access to public transit.

Parking fees are astronomical in LA County. And, of course, we all feel the pain of the gas prices. But if they're not in downtown LA by 8:30, in my courtroom, I have to issue a bench warrant for their arrest. That further criminalizes this already vulnerable population. The ability to participate remotely, if they choose, also helps to maintain employment. They meet childcare obligations, they take care of their elderly relatives.

Giving them the option to appear remotely allows them to fulfill their court obligations without having to spend their entire day getting to court and then waiting to be heard. As you can imagine, a typical day in my courtroom has hundreds of cases. In order to run it efficiently, I need that tool to some people appear remotely, and I don't have to necessarily hear from them in person. I have seen remote proceedings increase participation of parties, witnesses, and other justice partners, such as mental health providers.

In the collaborative courts where they're getting treatment, they can appear remotely. If everybody's doing great, they'll appear as part of the program. The program appears remotely. All the people that were ordered to have services are there remotely. And if they're doing well, we just say, keep up the good work. We're proud of you. If they're not doing well, if they have a dirty test, then we will say you are ordered to come to court or figure out what the better steps to give them better services.

So in that sense, this is access to justice issue. But it's also a reminder that this was the law. Just a couple of years ago, this was all these justice partners. It was defense attorneys, criminal prosecutors, sheriffs, civil. We all agreed that having remote as an option, not for trials, never for trials, is a good tool, and remote, in that sense, it is working. But I think I agree that for everything, it should not happen for every single one. And the Judicial Council does also support that. Remote proceedings do have its place. It's not for every single proceeding.

Thank you. Judge Brown.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. My name is Larry Brown. I'm the Supervising Judge of the Collaborative Courts for the Sacramento Superior Court. I also serve as the Chair of the Judicial Council's Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee, where I spend time with the likes of Judge Manley from Santa Clara, Judge Kreber from Orange County, Presiding Judge Smiley from Alameda County, and the like.

And I can assure you that we are all universally in support of having ongoing authorization for remote proceedings in our collaborative and diversionary courts. I'm in my 10th year of presiding over the mental health treatment court in Sacramento County. Now it's courts, three courts, the felony mental health diversion cases, veterans court, reentry court, DUI treatment court for repeat offenders.

Unlike traditional courts, where the focus is on what did the person do, in collaborative courts, of course, it's about who is the person and what can be done to address some of their underlying challenges in living life in the community, whether that's mental health or substance abuse or housing instability. In these courts, I think one of the most significant features is this, we suspend time over them, and they have to make regular appearances in our courtroom to graduate.

My mental health court, for example, which takes at least a year of successful participation, we'll have seen that person 20 to 25 times during that year, because that's part of the treatment modality, is that we are there to support this person, to address their needs. To the topic at hand, certainly, we were all reeling like everybody else. How are we going to do collaborative courts when the pandemic hit?

And there was a firm commitment that we were going to have the collaborative courts continue, because we're a lifeline for the folks who are in our courts. It has worked out so much better than we ever could have anticipated. It wasn't just making the best of a bad situation. But, for example, I've always made it a practice that I learn about personal details of each of the participants in my courts.

Their pets, their children, their hobbies, whatever it might be. And during, with remote technology, now we meet their toddler child. We see their cat. Literally, in veterans court, a puppy or a dog's tried to give birth to its puppies, and we watched as puppies were being born. I know it's a little unconventional, but collaborative courts are unconventional for a reason. It's that we are showing that we value the persons in our court.

And so now, with having this kind of hybrid approach, it has been immensely popular with the participants in our court. They have the option to come in if they like, but most of them choose to appear remotely because of some of the very issues that you've heard here today. They have a child to take care of, an elderly parent to take care of, they have a minimum wage job.

It's very difficult to yet go downtown again and go see Judge Brown. Whereas they can zoom in during their break, and we coordinate to make sure it's their break time. We'll call their case right now. One and done. And they're gone. And just yesterday, in my mental health diversion matter, had a young man who has had a lot of difficulties recently. He's been hospitalized recently. He's back out now. His mother brought him to court, developmentally disabled and has schizophrenia, and he's been doing better.

And she asked, as she was leaving, she turned to me and said, could we appear on Zoom next time. And I said yes. So the look on her face of thank you for allowing that. So I would just say this, thank you for authorizing the legislation, allow this to keep going. I look forward to providing whatever input we can provide as you craft the ongoing law. Thank you.

Thank you. Director Salzillo.

Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I'm Cory Salzillo, the Legislative Director for the California State Sheriff's Association. Not sure what I did to be able to sit next to these two fine individuals, but honored to be doing so. Anyhow, generally speaking, California State Sheriff's Association has been supportive of having access to remote proceedings in certain circumstances because of the flexibility that it provides and the reduction in the amount of transportation and movement that it requires for incarcerated persons to court.

As to the general question of how this is working, I have to say that with 58 counties, it obviously varies. And I would say that goes for how much is being used, whether technology and infrastructure are available, are there available staffing resources on the sheriff's side? That does vary by county. We hear from some counties that it's going just fine.

And other counties, the concern is having to staff both what are considered to be full or close to full calendars from both an in person and a remote perspective. So a pretty wide response. Again, during the pandemic, we were more readily able to convert to remote proceeding because staff who worked, who would otherwise be working physically in courts, could support the remote proceedings, the workload needs, the transportation of incarcerated persons, that sort of thing.

And as the courts have opened, there are expectations in some counties that sheriffs fully staff both in person and remote court proceedings. So without objecting to that, we just note the realities of those challenges. And we're certainly desirous of having the authority to do both, to continue to do both. Some counties have had that challenge with staffing both notions in a robust manner.

And I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't take this opportunity to acknowledge that the funding provided by the state to sheriffs to provide court security services has not kept pace with the cost of actually protecting the state courts. Lastly, finally, as we've noted in prior situations, we're concerned about the possibility that certain civil proceedings, chief amongst them civil commitments, incompetent to stand trial proceedings, would not be allowed to happen remotely.

Without this option, patients would likely be needed, would need to be transported from state hospital to the county jail so they can appear in court. And this serves to interrupt the meaningful treatment that they're receiving and creates unnecessary drains on personnel and transportation resources. So I hope that's helpful. Happy to answer any questions, and thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. I just want to remind Committee Members, we are over time. So if you guys have questions, please be concise. If you guys need information, please ask for a follow up. Any questions? Senator Umberg.

Remote access is scheduled to expire at the end of June. Just if each of you could briefly comment on what impact it would have in terms of your practice, access to justice, et cetera. That's point one. Point two is that, and I did not ask, I see Judge Anderson is still present. I did not ask her to comment on the gathering of data by Judicial Council, judicial counsel, as was required, both gathered data and reported it back to Legislature, surveys, et cetera.

And I would ask that that be circulated. We can do that. We'll circulate it to the Committee Members so that they can see the empiric data that you've collected. So thank you, Judge Anderson. Back to the panel.

Well, I think extending the sunset for remote criminal proceedings is extremely important for the courts. It's one of our top priorities because we have seen that it is efficient. It is an option to give a tool to the participants if they want to participate. For us, we think that it is one of our high priority bills. We look forward to working with you, and we thank you for your leadership in authoring SB 122. Is it 22? SB 22, and we look forward to working with you.

But for us, we do feel like it is a tool that we'd like to keep, and it does work. And I disagree that there is not technology issues. There is. We're still learning. You're on mute. You're off mute. That still comes with the etiquette of learning how to do this. But I think it's getting better every day. We get better, definitely from 2020 when we didn't know how to unmute and mute that sort of things. But it is a high priority for Judicial Council.

I just say the best thing I acquired during the pandemic was a mug that says, you're on mute. I was able to hold that on the screen for people appearing remotely. That was beautiful. It would be a profound change were we to lose this ability. In a given week, I might have well over 100 persons just in my mental health court and mental health diversion matters. At least three quarters of them appear remotely.

Of course, if we have to do it, we'll go back to the old days. They can all come in, but the impact it has on their lives and their providers right now, they can go to their provider's conference room and get their doctor's appointment and make their court appearance all at the same time. So we'd have to undo so much of that progress that's been made. But we'll adapt if we have to. But it would be a dramatic change, particularly for the people suffering from the serious mental illness.

Mr. Chair. From some county's perspective, I think it would be helpful in as much as they're being asked to try to staff both remote and in person proceedings. I think from other counties perspective, it would be damaging to have to, instead of allowing for remote appearances, to have to physically transport incarcerated persons to their court appearances. So without being mealymouthed, I think it would vary, but it would have impacts.

Thank you. Senator Ashby.

Thank you. I'll try to be succinct for Chair Wahab. Judge Brown, it's so nice to see you.

Congratulations.

Thank you. And it's nice to hear from the judges that the arraignments and the specialty courts are really doing well. I can imagine that. I worked, as Judge Brown knows, I worked in arraignment courts in Sacramento County. And I can see now, thinking back now how that might have been helpful to be able to have arraignment, especially, I can't even imagine LA at 8:00 in the morning because it is really challenging.

And when you're in the public defender seat, you're praying they find a parking spot and get in there in time. So I could see that piece. I was also really glad to hear you both talk about the fact that for the actual trials, it's just a non-starter. I think that's really important that we protect that. Judge Brown, my question for you is really twofold.

One is, and I think I just want to hear you say it out loud, when you see folks on Zoom, Prop 36, mental health, drug diversion, whichever court, and you have your judge senses tell you that perhaps you'd like to see them in person next time. Are you doing that? Is that happening? And are the other judges doing it as well.

On that, yes, we will. Absolutely. If we're starting to sense, a lot of times we'll have that sense, Senator, by the team reports that we've received even before I take the bench. But if things start to appear that maybe they're going to be influenced or they're not taking any medication right now, they're not staying at their housing. Why don't you come in for the next court appearance so we can kind of see how things really are. And potentially right the ship.

We may have them do that for several consecutive appearances so that they kind of get restabilized. Things are going well, and then we sort of reward them with the option of going back to zoom.

That just gives me a level of comfort to hear you say it out loud, I assume, but...

It's like a carrot and stick approach. The people who are just starting the program, they see the other people who are doing well. Hey, they don't have to come in if I do well, and I'll say it out loud. Mr. So and so, you've done so well. I don't have to see you again for two months, and I don't have to see you until you could come remotely.

It makes a lot of sense for Prop 36, for diversion, for mental health, and I think that's good. My last question for both of you, judges, is I can hear, anecdotally, you fighting, which I love this. I love hearing the judges fight, anecdotally, for the people you're trying to help. I really do. But what are your statistical outcomes? Are they better? I'm sure the participation numbers are higher, but is completion of diversion higher? Is completion of mental health treatment services higher? Is completion of Prop 36 higher, or is it about the same?

I don't have that data at all, but I would think, anecdotally, it feels like it's better. We're at least knowing how to contact them, having some information about where their whereabouts or even their zoom whereabouts helps, but I don't have that data.

Okay.

Nor do I. I mean, the diminution we may have seen in some of their graduation rates were during the pandemic, and it was in part because of the trauma, the extra level of trauma that we were all experiencing. But for a person who's schizophrenic or what have you, their world was that much more disrupted. And so it was harder, I think, for them to meet maybe some of the benchmarks to graduate one of these programs or be able to kind of keep everything together.

But as it stands now, I haven't seen any diminution in success rates, graduation rates. I've got several graduates coming this afternoon who've all done it with remote hybrid proceedings, so I haven't seen it being a problem.

Would be interesting to know some statewide stats on that, too, so maybe we can hunt it down.

Is this the old, we'll have Judicial Council check on that and get back to you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Judge Brown.

I do appreciate all of you time. And honestly, if you guys have any additional information you guys want to provide to us, please send it to us. I will be inviting the next panel and handing it over back to Senator Umberg. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Wahab. All right, now, panel five, concerning court reporter availability. We touched on this a little earlier, but we have Ms. Curran, Chief Policy and Research Officer for Judicial Council, Stacy Gaskill, Court Reporter from San Mateo Superior Court and Member of SEIU Local 521, Jennafer Wagner, Director of Programs, Family Violence Appellate Project, Stephanie Leslie, President Elect at California Deposition Reporters Association and the CEO of Regal Court Reporting, as well as Yvonne Fenner, Executive Officer, Court Reporters Board.

We don't have room for all of you up here, so why don't we first take Ms. Curran, Ms. Gaskill, and Ms. Wagner, and then we'll have Ms. Leslie and Ms. Fenner standing by. All right, let's start with you, Ms. Curran.

Good. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Shelley Curran. I'm the Chief Policy and Research Officer for the Judicial Council, and I appreciate the opportunity this morning to speak with all of you about court reporters and the importance of a verbatim record in court proceedings.

In its 2018 Jameson versus Desta opinion, the California Supreme Court stated that the absence of a verbatim record of a trial court proceedings will often have a devastating effect of a litigant's ability to have an appeal decided on the merits. In California, the verbatim record is captured and transcribed exclusively by certified shorthand reporters in case types, where a court reporter is required and electronic recording is prohibited. Court reporters are required in felony and juvenile proceedings here.

Electronic recording is not authorized except in limited civil, misdemeanor infraction proceedings when a court reporter is not available. Parties may arrange for the services of a court reporter in other case types, and courts must provide an official court reporter in civil cases, when a party with a fee waiver requests one and the proceeding cannot be otherwise electronically recorded. There are 4576 California licensed court reporters residing in the state as of January 2023, according to the California Department of Consumer Affairs data.

Between fiscal year 13-14 and fiscal year 20-21, the number of total licensees has declined 17.1% and the number of applications to become a court reporter has declined 67.2%. Courts employ approximately 1200 full time equivalent court reporters. To meet minimum requirements, all cases where a court reporter is required and ER is not authorized, it's estimated that California courts may need up to an additional 650 full time reporters. And courts are recruiting. In a recent survey, 75% of courts reported that they are actively recruiting for court reporters.

The recent state budget that people mentioned earlier appropriated $30 million in ongoing funding for trial courts to increase the number of court reporters in family and civil cases. With these funds, some courts offer increased salaries, signing bonuses, retention or longevity bonuses, and student loan forgiveness incentives. As a result of these efforts, courts have hired 46 reporters since July 1, 2022. But unfortunately, over a third of these reporters came from other courts. Even more troubling, in the same time period, 97 court reporters left their positions.

This represents a net loss of 51 reporters from their positions, and we have a concern that the number of court reporters is going to continue to decline. The National Court Reporters Association reported that the average age of its court reporter members is approximately 55 years old as of June 30, 2022. In California, approximately 44% of all active licenses were issued at least 30 years ago. Only eight court reporting programs recognized by the state remain open. Licensing is also a challenge.

Only 39 new licenses were issued statewide in fiscal years 20-21. In November, 2022, of the 81 individuals who applied to take the skills portion of the certified shorthand reporter exam, only 25% passed. I do want to note, and it was mentioned earlier, that voice writing recently became authorized in California. It's our understanding that 11 individuals have applied to take the exam, and the four individuals who have actually taken the deportation portion of the exam have all passed.

My only caution with this glimmer of hope is that we don't know where these individuals will go to work once they are fully licensed. And this brings me to my final point, and that is, competition with the private market is a serious challenge for the courts. According to a survey completed by 50 consumer attorneys in the state, they pay on average $2,580 per day for a deposition, $3,300 per day with a trial for a high, and we saw a high number of 10,000.

And it was also referenced by some of the earlier panelists in Jameson v. Desta, in Desta v. Jameson. Excuse me, the California Supreme Court stated that the lack of a verbatim record will frequently be fatal to a litigant's ability to have an appeal decided on the merits.

In preparation for this hearing, the Los Angeles Superior Court provided data on the number of civil, probate, and family law hearings during January and February of this year where no verbatim records were created because a court reporter was not available to capture and transcribe the hearing.

26874 unlimited civil hearings had no record. 14,052 family law hearings had no record. 11,021 probate hearings had no record. So in just two months, Los Angeles had nearly 52,000 civil, family law, and probate hearings where there is no verbatim record. If this continues, over 300,000 hearings in those case types will be held in LA County with no verbatim record this year. Certified shorthand reporters are the preferred way to provide this record.

Thank you, Ms. Curran, if you could wrap up.

But the number of court reporters is not keeping pace with the need, and this threatens access to justice for all Californians, especially low income ones. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Gaskill.

Good morning. My name is Stacy Gaskill. I've been a licensed court reporter for 27 years, with the past 24 being employed by the San Mateo County Superior Court as an official court reporter. I am a member of SEIU 521 and I'm here on behalf of court reporters represented by SEIU statewide. When you talk about the availability of court reporters, it's important to accurately define the issues courts actually face. It is a recruitment and retention issue.

According to the Judicial Council website, there are 2175 bench officers, some of whom don't require a court reporter. According to a recent report by the California Court Reporters Board, there are 6500 active licensed court reporters in the state. There are plenty of court reporters in California to cover every bench officer. So why are court reporters choosing not to come work for the trial courts? To answer this, history and context are important.

During the Great Recession, most trial courts made the decision to lay off their civil and family law reporters in an effort to save money, despite the fact that government code Section 68086 allows courts to charge the parties a fee for the actual cost of providing a court reporter employed by the Superior Court.

These fees allow courts to recoup the costs of employing civil and family law reporters and at the same time provide litigants an affordable way to obtain a court reporter and a verbatim record. However, very few courts use their authority to collect these fees. The statute also provides fee waivers of these costs for indigent litigants. Government code section 686.1 established that $30 from certain civil fees be set aside and allocated to courts that actually employ civil reporters to incentivize their use.

We are unclear whether this money is being collected from court users, even if a reporter is not provided to them, and we don't know if the money is being distributed back to courts employing civil reporters. When civil and family reporters were laid off, the need for them did not go away. Instead, a private market was created where demand dictated costs. These costs can range anywhere from $500 to $1000 per appearance, plus transcript fees, even if the appearance is 15 minutes.

Trial costs for a privately retained reporter can cost up to $4,000 a day or more, plus transcript fees. In contrast, as an almost 25 year employee, I make approximately $500 a day. And just as a side note, that is on the higher spectrum for a salary for a court reporter, so you can understand the lure of the private market. Additionally, many courts have not been exactly friendly to court reporters.

The courts are constantly acting to eliminate our jobs and publicly calling for the expansion of electronic recording. Just this past November, 54 court executive directors signed a press release declaring a shortage of court reporters, citing outdated statistics and asking the Legislature to expand the use of electronic recording. On top of this, most courts have done very little to actually recruit and retain reporters, despite the Legislature giving them $30 million in ongoing dedicated dollars to do so.

In the first year of funding, 2021, not one court spent their funds. In 2022, the money was allocated in September, and some courts, like mine, acted quickly and in good faith to recruit and retain court reporters. We now have three applicants, and one has been hired. Other SEIU represented courts have been extremely reluctant to spend these funds or have only agreed to spend a portion in ways that are not meaningful to actually recruit and retain reporters. In September of 2022, the voice writing licensure law took effect.

Voice writers use verbal shorthand to create a transcript, much like stenographic court reporters use written shorthand. Voice and stenographic students can now attend school online and take their tests online. Schools all over the nation are filling with voice writing students who have a 90% retention rate, versus stenographic writers, who have a 10% retention rate.

Since the mass layoff of court reporters between 2009 and 2012, work needs to be done to restore court reporter confidence that, not only is it safe to work for a trial court, but the job is attractive. Courts simply need to be more competitive with the private market. You have been clear in your priorities and investments in official court reporters. We know licensed reporters are out there.

Court reporting schools are full of voice writing students, and the pool of reporter candidates is growing, but your actions need time to pay off. It's only been the past six months we've seen courts start using their funds to recruit and retain reporters since the voice writing and since the voice writing licensure law took effect. Thank you for your time and commitment to official court reporters.

Thank you all for inviting me here today. I'm the director of programs at Family Violence Appellate Project. As a California State Bar funded support center, we directly support the work of legal aid and pro bono attorneys throughout the state, representing survivors of abuse in civil court every day.

As a California Office of Emergency Service funded legal assistance grantee, we work with domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking counselors, supporting their clients who represent themselves in civil court seeking protective orders, family law orders, and court order protection for themselves and their children. Court decisions impact vulnerable communities in profound ways. Whether you get a restraining order, whether you get child or spousal support, whether you're evicted, whether your debts can be discharged because they were caused by abuse, to quickly name a few.

However, your access to justice depends on your income level. If you are poor and know about it, you can ask for a free court reporter under Jameson v. Desta. However, be prepared in California today to come back over and over again until a court reporter is actually available. If you are wealthy, you can afford an attorney who will hire a private court reporter for your court proceedings. We've heard here today the cost is thousands of dollars every day just to have the reporter there with you.

If you fall in the middle, if you represent yourself, or if you don't know, you can ask for a free court reporter. In the vast majority of courtrooms today, there will not be any record of what happened at your hearing. In California's Justice Futures Commission report, 57 of the state's courts reported to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 19% were never providing a court reporter in family law proceedings, 35% were never providing a reporter in probate proceedings, and 35% were never providing a court reporter in other kinds of cases. As was mentioned in November of 2022, 54 of the 58 county court CEOs put out a press release. They are trying to hire court reporters, but they cannot.

In LA Superior Court, at this point, we are told it's imminent that domestic violence proceedings won't have court reporters. Santa Clara County announced in 2020 they couldn't provide court reporters in any non-mandated case, including civil, family law, and probate. San Diego County made a similar announcement in November of 2021. We've heard from advocates in Imperial and Lassen counties that they have no civil court reporters at all.

Advocates in Lassen were told the court does not have a plan in place if someone actually makes a Jameson request for a free court reporter. Shasta County has resorted to electronically recording felony criminal trials, which is clearly illegal. But the Court of Appeal is not taking the writs on those cases because a record is important. We at FVAP hear every day about the court reporter shortage and the dangerous effect it has for survivors of abuse. Survivors are making arrangements for childcare, transportation, time off work.

They're stealing themselves to testify about the abuse that they have endured. They're showing up to court and being told there is no court reporter today. You can come back three or four weeks from now and try again. They are coming back once or twice, and then they're giving up. And the legal aid attorneys and advocates who support them are at a loss to tell them to do something otherwise because it is just too difficult. A record matters.

I speak frequently with trial court attorneys and ask them, what happened at court with your client? Is this worth appealing? They don't remember, and they are trained professionals who go to court every day. The vast majority of litigants in family court matters are self-represented. When they leave court, they often don't fully recall everything the judge ordered. They don't know why an order was made or denied. Did the judge refuse child support because they don't deserve it or because they filed the wrong papers?

The judge deny the restraining order because abuse didn't happen or because you just don't need a restraining order right now? It makes a real difference when you go back to court later on if there was abuse or if there was an abuse. In all likelihood, when people go back to court, the judge they see is not this judge they saw the first time.

If they're trying to modify a custody order, modify a restraining order, or get the other protections they need. Litigants who need to reduce a judge's ruling to writing to have it enforced don't have a way of figuring out what that ruling was. This is a crisis. Just last week, the California Judges Association, the consumer attorneys of California, and the California Civil Defense Counsel Association sent a letter urging the legislation to take action. I checked out court reporter job boards.

They're full of positions offering thousands of dollars in bonuses a day to show up and do depositions. But where does that leave our courts? The CCP 367.9 Commission that's been mentioned here before had made a report with 21 recommendations. A lot of them focused on retaining, getting more court reporters, giving them what they need. But at the same time, we need to have a record in all hearings. This is not an either-or. It's got to be an and solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wagner. We've actually been joined by Ms. Leslie and Ms. Fenner now. So let me turn to Ms. Leslie? Yes. All right. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. I think it's still morning. Good morning. Chairs, members, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. First, I wanted to thank Chairman Umberg for your leadership on issues affecting my profession. You first authored SB 241, which we've talked about at length about firm registration, and also SB 1146 regarding remote deposition reporting. My name is Stephanie Leslie. I'm president-elect of the deposition, the California Deposition Reporters Association. We're the only trade Association in the state exclusively representing freelance court reporters.

I'm also a working California CSR and CEO of Regal Court Reporting. We're a mid-sized reporter-owned firm located in Orange County, and we've been in operation since 2007 and we provide licensed stenographers of the highest quality to attorneys and others who need the services of a court reporter for their depositions. Also, private arbitrations, public meetings, and in court whenever there isn't an official provided.

As you probably know, our industry is made up of overwhelmingly women and small businesses, and I'm pleased to be here to address this topic of freelance reporter availability. So thank you for the opportunity. First, regarding getting jobs covered, we are getting jobs covered. I'm just speaking on my own behalf in my firm. We are getting jobs covered. It is harder than it used to be for me and my colleagues, but we're getting it done.

I'm able to serve my clients with qualified human reporters for their hearings, trials, and depositions. And good news, we've talked about this as well, that more help is on the way in the form of voice writers. So, Mr. Chair, your bill did make it possible and is continuing to make it possible for me to retain a reporter for a West LA deposition on Friday afternoon in horrible traffic from, say, Fresno or Barstow. So that is helping with our problem.

But secondly, there are two things that could be done to improve availability that have not been suggested yet. One is something that could be done right away. Sadly, it's commonplace for multiple freelance reporters to show up in court for the very same law in motion and trial matter.

If there is a law in motion matter, for example, that means that you may have multiple reporters needlessly sitting around a courtroom during the whole calendar when you really only need one, and the others could be out covering other jobs. Requiring the parties to meet and confer is an option, and making them settle on a single reporter for the day for in-court matters would immediately free up a significant number of our reporters for other jobs.

Secondly, the number of court reporting programs has dramatically declined in our state over the last decade by half. And our profession is a very good one for high school graduates without college degrees. Yet community colleges are offering far fewer court reporting programs than they once did. Respectfully, while DRA, our Deposition Reporters Association, and our sister trade associations are going to job fairs, going to career days to promote reporting, which is a truly excellent, well-paying, respected profession for someone with a high school diploma, we run into a brick wall when there isn't a program available for them at their local community college. And because if a student is considering a career and they don't see the court reporting program offered in their catalog, they'll go elsewhere, choose a different career.

So, Chairs and members, I respectfully am unaware of any concerted effort from the courts, from the Legislature or the educational community to expand the number of court reporting programs in our community colleges, which is something that is critical to addressing the availability of court reporters in the mid and in the long term. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Leslie. Ms. Fenner.

Good morning, Senators. Thank you so much for the opportunity to share some information from the Court Reporters Board of California. Excuse me, my name is Yvonne Fenner. I'm the executive officer of the Court Reporters Board and I'm also a licensed court reporter. The CRB oversees the court reporting industry by developing and administering a license exam to ensure entry-level competency, as well as processing and resolving consumer complaints against licensees. We license individual reporters and register all firms offering court reporting services in California.

We also set curriculum for the court reporting schools that we recognize, and we administer the Transcript Reimbursement Fund, which provides transcript assistance for qualified indigent litigants. There's been a lot of discussion on whether or not there's a shortage of California court reporters. There currently is a sufficient number of licensed court reporters to meet the demand. But court reporting as an industry faces the same labor supply issues that all industries across the country are facing right now.

To help meet any deficit in the pipeline of court reporters, the board opened licensing to voicewriters in July. Voice writing is an alternative method of shorthand reporting where the court reporter uses their voice to report the proceedings rather than their hands on a stenotype machine. Voice writers use a shorthand based on English rather than having to learn a completely new shorthand language, as machine reporters do.

This shortens the training time necessary to train them. Because they are able to complete their program in 18 to 24 months, voice writing training more closely aligns with vocational education requirements. This is good news for the schools as it makes accreditation less of an issue. Additionally, because the program is English-based and of a shorter duration, a much higher percentage of students who begin the program successfully complete it, typically upwards of 90%.

This is also a win for the schools who are required to report such statistics to their accrediting bodies. Much has been made of the number of California court-reporting schools that have closed over the last decade. This is not due to low enrollment, but rather changes in federal regulations by the Department of Education, which placed limits on the number of times students could repeat a course.

With machine shorthand, it is not uncommon for a student to plateau in speed building for as long as a year before they're able to progress. The limitation in repeatability affected financial aid, and many private schools closed their doors. However, I'd like to point out that just because a court reporting program is not recognized by the Court Reporters Board, that doesn't mean that there's a shortage of court reporting programs available. There are many, many training programs throughout the country.

These programs train to the national standard called the Certificate of Registered Professional Reporter, or RPR. Once a graduate has passed the RPR, they are eligible to take the California license exam. The advantage of being recognized by the CRB simply means that the schools may send their graduates directly to the California exam without requiring passage of the national exam first. It appears that there is again an appetite for vocational training, which strengthens the interest in court reporting. Court reporters do need help in recruitment.

We have the best career that no one has ever heard of. In fact, most people who are not related to a court reporter have never heard of the field. The majority of people are not involved in litigation and therefore are never exposed to the career. It's lucrative. It offers many different areas in which to practice and is available to students coming right out of high school, as well as mature workers that are looking for a career change. Thank you for your time this morning, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Ms. Fenner. All right, let me turn to the panel. Senator Niello.

I don't have any questions. This has been a very valuable hearing. I'm not an attorney, but I did, about 45 years ago, pass the law section of the CPA exam, which means I know enough just to be dangerous. So this has been very helpful. And the hearing has been enhanced significantly by in person testimony. This is the first hearing where I have witnessed entire in person testimony. I've made the observation of the drawbacks of the video testimony on several occasions.

I learned a lot and a lot of that is because of the in-person testimony that is, I think, relates to the question we're dealing with here. And I would agree with the comments that Senator Wiener said some time ago that it's an alternative but ought not to be the default. And I recognize there are some areas where in-person is made difficult, but maybe we ought to look at court operations a little bit differently.

As an example, in areas where there is very heavy morning and afternoon commute traffic and difficult to get to the court, maybe rather than operating from eight to five, we ought to operate from 10 to seven, avoiding both of those potentially difficult commute hours. So looking at things a little bit differently, just as the pandemic forced us to and provided us this tool that we have that we're talking about now, there could be other ways that we could look at the issue.

With regard to the court reporter issue, it is a challenge of a different nature. And as Ms. Fenner said, it is something that is being experienced throughout the economy. My first profession, public accounting, is experiencing the exact same thing right now, finding it difficult to recruit new accountants into the profession. So it is a significant issue throughout the economy. But again, as we're crafting a replacement for the current authority relative to remote court operations, maybe we look at the in-court operations a little bit differently also. And again, I think making it a default would not be a good way to go.

Thank you, Senator Niello. Senator Caballero, then Senator Durazo. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. I apologize for missing part of the testimony on this particular panel. Just want to say that I'm an attorney and I practiced in the courts for 25 years before I started a new career. And the court reporters were just extraordinary. They are there, and even if you show up in court on a regular basis, nobody knows you're there. And that's the whole purpose of the court reporter.

So I just want to say how much I appreciate the work that you do for hearings where you have, well, it's probably most of the hearings, actually, where you want a record and you want to make sure that the record accurately reflects what was said in court so that then it can be translated for litigants that are there that don't understand the court system. It's really critically important, and it pains me that some of the activities during COVID didn't have court reporters.

I just want to go on record saying that I do appreciate the work that you do, that it's critically important that the information be accurately recorded so that there is a record and there can be clarification which becomes very difficult when there's real no recording. And so whatever we need to do to make it, the idea of agreeing on one court reporter for the court makes a lot of sense to me. It's silly to have more than one person sitting in the courtroom waiting around.

We ran into that problem with court interpreters as well. Many times there were multiple interpreters in the courtroom, and then I'd go over to another courtroom in the courthouse, and there'd be no interpreter. So everything would come to a halt if you had a Spanish-speaking client. And so all of that organization is critically important.

And so one of the issues that I'm interested in is there a way for us to set up a system where all the courts do similar things so that it's very clear when you go into court whether there's going to be interpreters available and reporters available, and that may cost us more money, but I just think that it's the efficient use of the courtroom. You absolutely would start a war with the judges if stuff didn't start at 8:15 in the morning. But it's a good point.

I always asked, why don't we do Saturday courts for individuals that have to miss the entire day? My clients were blue collar workers. They had to miss the entire day in order to go to court. And there were times when we'd get to the end of the calendar and the judge would say, we didn't get to your case. Can you come back tomorrow? The more efficient and the better organized we are, I think the better it is for our clients that have to go to court for whatever reason.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. So apologize for missing out. I'm glad I was able to get the tail end of this in terms of court reporter availability, and I really appreciate the last remarks about that there are sufficient court reporters right now. So sometimes someone says something, and then it just gets repeated over and over, and pretty soon that becomes fact.

And I'm glad that those of you who are in the courts can clarify that the shortage, in fact, is not there, although we shouldn't sit on our laurels and expect that will always be the case unless we're proactive. So that's a really good clarification. I guess my question is about how do we improve the recruitment and the retention of court reporters. And funding that we approved last year was supposed to be to help the recruitment and the retention process, either with some financial incentives or other things. So what are your ideas? How do we improve the recruitment and the retention of court reporters, and where's the decision-making? If there's improvements that need to be made on that front, then is the decision maker making those decisions so that we can get on with what we need to do?

So, Senator, also, is that to the panel in general, or is there one person? Anybody. All right.

I would like to respond. So I think what was testified to is that there are more court reporters than judges in the state, which is true. But remember, the vast majority of legal proceedings take place outside of a courtroom. So what we have are most reporters working in the private market doing deposition work, which is a choice. And I don't think we can stop them from making that career choice.

Certainly, if there are things to do to improve the pipeline into the courts, that would be fantastic. The CCP 367.9 commission report does have some suggestions along those lines. Things like scholarships, we'll pay for your school, you agree to go to court for two years, things like that. But in the meantime, there are no records of what's happening in court. And I'd like to point out today that I believe we are being digitally recorded by a professional digital recorder. It's also a highly professional profession.

Court reporters are absolutely the preference, 100%. But when they aren't available, we have to do something else.

Anyone else want to respond? Okay, well, everybody, but we'll go one at a time.

I'll be quick. I just wanted to mention that since the funds, this 30 million that has been allocated to the recruitment, have finally been released in the last two months, I believe, I have seen bonuses, like signing bonuses, come back to court. Come back to court. And from the freelance world, I can tell you that there's been a lot of interest. Oh, that's really intriguing. So I think things like that will help, but it does take time. And so it's just been implemented.

Ms. Gaskill?

That's actually what I was going to say, is that we just are now seeing the results of the money that was allocated to the courts and to the digital reporter. We are all speaking very clearly, so you can understand this into these microphones. And so I'm sure it's a beautiful record, but that's not actually what happens in court.

Thank you, Ms. Gaskill. Ms. Curran.

Yeah. I would just add that we are hopeful that the $30 million will make a difference. And courts have, as people have mentioned, offered retention bonuses, signing bonuses, increased salaries. In some of the courts with whom I've had conversations who were able to implement some of these incentives, they haven't had that much interest. So for example, the court reporter testified that they've had one hire in San Mateo and I think four applicants.

So we're very grateful for the one person we were able to bring on and hopeful that others will come on board. But there really is still a significant need in California that's just not being met. Los Angeles made their announcement in the beginning of February. Their net number in February is negative two. So they were able to hire one. They lost several more to retirement.

So even with some of these incentives, we are still searing people leaving the courts either through retirement or to go to the private sector. Even with the money, which we are very appreciative of, courts are trying to spend it. But I do think we need to be aware that if they are not out there, because we talked about before, the amount of money that people are making in the private sector is really hard for courts to compete with. It's thousands of dollars a day.

Other comments? Questions? Did you want a further comment?

I was just going to say I loved the suggestion that was made earlier that I didn't realize that there was an opportunity for the court to recoup some of those costs. I think that's genius and a great way to recoup, and it would definitely keep the prices in a more reasonable level. And I don't know, we haven't really talked much about electronic recording. We don't need to go into it too much. But I think we would all agree it's inferior.

Everyone's in agreement that live court reporters are the gold standard, the only standard. But there are a lot of issues with that. If you are contemplating that being a solution, it's really inferior and very problematic for a lot of arenas like for privacy and HIPAA and things like that when things get outsourced to other countries. So I just wanted to caution the. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo? All right. Thank you very much. I think we can agree that not just the gold standard, that the best practice is to have in court, court reporters. If there's someone that disagrees, I would be shocked. Following on Senator Caballero's comments, when I was a brand new lawyer, I was taught the first thing you do is introduce yourself to the court reporter and ingratiate yourself.

Same thing with the court staff, that they could make your life easier or not easier depending upon your attitude toward them. I see members shaking their heads in the affirmative. The challenge for us is we've heard different things. We've heard different things, is that there's a court reporter shortage. There is not a court reporter shortage. Let me just follow up with a couple questions, and let me begin with Ms. Gaskill. Ms. Gaskill, in San Mateo, are court reporters available for all civil matters?

So we just recently started the bring your own court reporter process. But prior to that, we were providing in San Mateo County official reporters for all case types. And we also just last year, started using electronic recording for misdemeanors. But prior to that, we were using court reporters for all case types. Sorry.

So for today, just in San Mateo County, I know it's different in each county. Los Angeles County is very different than San Mateo County. But in San Mateo County, where you are employed, what proceedings don't have a court reporter today? A court-assigned court paid for, basically court reporter.

A court paid for. Misdemeanors. If a reporter is not available, then we will use the electronic recording. But we try to have one of our staff reporters report trials. I'm talking about, we typically do use electronic recording for arraignments, pretrials, those kinds of things. Anything, felony, juvenile court. We use our own court reporters. Civil trials. Like I said, we just started. If it's a very long civil trial, several weeks, then they will use an outside court reporter.

Okay, what about family law? Family law?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I think we're one of the few that still provides court reporters, our staff, court reporters for family law. And I don't see that changing with.

In the collaborative courts, do they have court reporters?

Yes, because we mix our misdemeanors and felonies, and felonies have to be reported. So, yes, we do use court reporters in collaborative court.

Okay. All right, now a question for Ms. Leslie. One of the challenges that I think we heard is that court reporters are making a decision to stay in the private sector versus working for the courts, although these bonuses may attract some. What would be, you think, the salary that would basically remedy the situation that we have today?

I'm hesitant to talk numbers. I think everyone has their own standard about that, and I don't know, I shy away from being too specific.

Just a range. Are we talking 100,000, 200,000, 300,000?

Probably in the one range. And then there's also transcripts on top of that. So it's a little tricky of a matrix to figure out. But I think that would be outright. I don't know what other people.

At some point, we will attract those from the private sector to come back in the public sector. I don't know what that figure is. Maybe I can turn to Ms. Gaskill. What's that figure that would attract, do you think, sufficient number of private sector reporters to come back in the public sector?

Well, I do think that the money that we were just given is working. Like we've been saying, it needs time to attract the reporters, to get them out of the world. But on top of the salary is benefits, which a lot of people don't account for. You get paid vacation. I'm recruiting now.

No, I want you to recruit. I'm old school. I remember when you'd go to court and there'd be a court reporter there. You didn't have to ask for a court reporter. They just were there. That was part of what we paid for as taxpayers.

Yes, and it used to be very comparable. When I started court reporting, there wasn't much of a difference.

Okay.

But when court reporters were laid off, that's when it.

So the next challenge is the pipeline, right?

Yeah.

So the pipeline appears, at least so far as I've heard, to be such that we are not creating enough. We'll see with the voice recording, but the pipeline is such that we're not encouraging enough individuals. At some price point, people are going to want to become court reporters. I don't know what that price point is. And maybe you can help us to figure out what that price point is because I think most judges also want to have in-court court reporting. They like that as well.

I shouldn't speak for the judges, but I see Judge Anderson, I think, yes, I see at least one judge shaking her head up and down back there, and that's a challenge for us to figure out. I think we're in agreement. We want to have in-court court reporters. All right, well, I want to thank you all. Senator Caballero, I look forward to your bill providing for Saturday hearings. Right. I'll be right behind you. Right.

Senator sitting next to me that I wanted to see his bill on court starting at 10:00 and ending at 7:00.

Right. So with that, we're going to close here in a second. Any final comments, questions? I see none. We're going to turn to now public comment. You're welcome to stay at the table if you like. We're going to turn to public comment. We're going to limit public comment to one minute each. We'll start with public comment here in the hearing room. Then we'll turn to the phone lines. All right, so let me read the participant number. Participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 621716. All right. The floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the chief Probation Officers of California, I'll keep my comments brief, recognizing that they echo many of the comments shared today. But we have been on record and certainly believe that there is benefit in having the option and authorization for remote hearings, both in juvenile proceedings and also adult proceedings as well.

I think one of the very important elements that we see is mitigating the barriers in transportation, child care, employment, and education, especially for some of the youth wanting to make sure that we are mitigating their time away from those pro-social and important things, but while at the same time kind of meeting the court requirements. So we're supportive of the option and authorization for remote hearings and certainly appreciate the discussion. Look forward to being part of the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you.

I will be brief because you've already heard me, but I do want to say we are in crisis level now in court reporters in civil. So I don't know how we're going to get crisis level from our jurisdiction back into the courts. I do miss those days, but we are in really serious trouble with the amount of court reporters that exist at this point. Secondly, and quickly, there are a lot of cases that we cannot take because they are too expensive.

I could not take a minor impact soft tissue case and go to trial. It would be a $12,000 verdict on a three-day trial at $5,000 a day for court reporters. I'm upside down $3,000 by taking that case. So we do need to act on this now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Chair. Members, Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. We represent court clerks and reporters and other court professionals all across the state. And I won't again repeat what members of Local 521 have already stated. They did an excellent job today. But what is clear from listening to testimony today is there is a lack of uniformity between courts on technology, but also a lack of uniformity with how challenges are addressed depending on who's running the proceedings.

The Legislature has provided $30 million in support of technology for courts to update and install appropriate and necessary technology. So thank you for that. We would love to see the Legislature continue to oversee the use of those funds. And to your point, Senator Umberg, on recruitment and retention of court reporters. Obviously, increased wages is always a great thing, but like many professions, the availability and access to good benefits and working conditions is a constant struggle.

Thank you, Ms. O'Malley.

Yeah. Hey, I'm Mike. I'm one of the people and I've been to the Monterey court and I've seen Judge Anderson in action putting an order to take away a man's business because he didn't want to violate HIPAA and the religious rights of his clients to be.

Focus your comments on the purpose of this hearing.

Yes, and my focus is you guys are getting input from somebody who doesn't even follow the Constitution. And as the public defender.

Right. Thank you, sir.

I'm still talking. The public defender said earlier, I think the issue is the courts and the judges not following the constitution is a serious issue. And if you reduce the amount of attacks upon the people with your legislative process and revenue collection, lower the amount of people who are actually in the courts, then you don't have all these issues in the first place. We need victims back into the crimes instead of all the victimless nonsense, you guys.

All right, thank you, sir. All right, next.

Yes, hi there. I'm really glad that you guys are talking about freedoms today and making sure that you protect people's Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Constitution. And I find it ironic that you chose honorable Marla Anderson to come.

Ma'am, focus your comments on the purpose of today's hearing.

I am focusing on exactly the same topic that you guys are discussing. So there was a man who had a business that he had worked for for four and a half years. He had a sterling reputation. He had glowing Google reviews that he talked about all the time and bragged about he had a current health permit and the place was sparkling clean. And because he didn't violate HIPAA or ADA or people's medical rights and privacy and their religious freedoms. Marla Anderson.

Ma'am.

Excuse me, I'm not done. Excuse me.

Well, you are. I'm sorry. We're focused on today's hearing topic. You may send us in writing whatever you choose to send us. Thank you. All right, well, thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your comment, but we're going to turn to the next speaker now. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and turn off the microphone. Thank you.

Don't you know what Marla Anderson has done?

All right, so we're going to turn to the next speaker. Mr. Hernandez, go ahead.

All right, thank you. Ignacio Hernandez, again, this time on behalf of the California Court Reporters Association, have submitted written comments regarding some of the trouble with remote appearances and what needs to be addressed. I'll just leave it at that. Please take a look at that.

Do want to mention that we do need to get the $30 million out on an annual basis and we also have to look at whether or not, if courts are not spending that money on an annual basis, if some of that money could be carried over to the following year, as opposed to use it or lose it, that is one thing. We also should look into workforce development game plans to get more folks into the profession. We should also ensure that courts are following the law.

United Public Employees is another client. Just point out, one thing that we've noticed in Sacramento is that the courts are not implementing the transcript rate increase that was adopted by the Legislature. And again, that is another way to attract folks to become official reporters. They simply are not providing that increased transcript rate, which it took 30 years to get the Legislature to adopt that increase, the graduated increase. So we just have to make sure courts are doing everything possible to bring in more court reporters.

Thank you, Mr. Hernandez.

Thank you. Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We want to say that the first thing that must be addressed is the technology. That before we can have remote justice, the technology needs to be equalized. And then, although there are benefits for juvenile and civil commitment proceedings to be held remotely, we haven't seen those same benefits with adult criminal. And we're going to ask that whatever happens, that there be adequate safeguards for both the court employees and for our clients. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Mike Belote, on behalf of the California Defense Counsel and the California Judges Association. I'll be very brief. I was encouraged by the degree of alignment on the remote appearance issue. Remote appearances have a role. They are critical to working people to get to have their day in court without taking a day off work. The system is getting better and the investments are being made.

We agree that no one should be forced into a remote appearance when they want to be in person, and there seems to be broad agreement across everyone who testified, and that's encouraging. On the court reporter issue, I would just say this. We applaud your emphasis on pipeline. You can create signing bonuses and referral fees and that sort of thing. But if you're just moving the existing court reporters around, we'll see if it moves people from the private sector back into the public.

But if you're not expanding the pipeline, that's a problem. If more people are leaving than are coming in, that's a problem. Now, maybe voice writing helps, and we'll see. But I would simply point out in the private sector, they are having a heck of a time getting people to agree to go to depositions, and the defense bar and the plaintiffs bar would not pay several $1000 a day in appearance fees if they didn't have to. The agencies are having a problem supplying the need for depositions, so the emphasis should be on the pipeline.

Thank you, Mr. Belote. All right, seeing no one else here in the hearing room wishing to testify, we're going to turn to the phones. Those of you on the phone. Moderator, if you please queue up those on the phone, please give us your name, your affiliation, and limit your comments to one minute.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you would like to testify on today's agenda, please press one followed by zero. It's one followed by zero for public comment on today's agenda. And we'll give one more opportunity to press one, zero if you would like to testify. Mr. Chair, nobody is queuing up at this time.

All right, well, thank you very much again. I see several of the panelists are still present. I appreciate your testimony. We've got lots of work to do here on this issue that is critically important to the Administration, the access justice here in California. So with that, we're going to. Did you want to? Oh, Senator Ashby.

Just want to say thank you to you, Chairman. It's really good oversight and all the staff who helped put it together. That was very informative. Appreciate it.

So thank you, Senator Ashby. Yes, thank you very much to staff. We couldn't do this without our excellent staff. So thank you both for the judiciary staff, always extremely both willing to chip in long hours. I appreciate that. Appreciate that. And also to public safety staff. Thank you, Ms. Kennedy. All right. With that, we'll conclude.