Most of Connecticut's criminal justice system personnel are currently working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The criminal courts are staffed by a skeleton crew of Judges, lawyers and court support. The Rules Committee has allowed for the emergency suspension of procedures requiring in-person presence in court or chambers. All of this has brought about a new day for technology in our courts.

In the midst of crisis management to ensure rule of law is maintained, there has been a necessary increased reliance on technology. "Virtual" and "Zoom" have become part of our daily vocabulary. While these changes have been forced on an unexpecting criminal justice system, they present an opportunity to thoughtfully reevaluate what we do and why we do it.

Why have our criminal courts required matters be scheduled at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.? With few exceptions the cattle-call method of docket management has prevailed on the criminal side. The traditional justifications for this inefficient approach to scheduling include convenience for Judges, clerks and prosecutors, adherence to the "it's always been done this way" line of thought and the difficulty of individual or smaller group scheduling of cases. Now is an opportune time to take a look at the available calendaring technology to make the day-to-day court process more efficient for everyone—not just court staff. Technology can provide an opportunity to spare citizens from losing valuable time from work and school.

Why do citizens and lawyers have to come in person to court for every continuance and minor matters? There is a recognition by many that "the process is the punishment," meaning repetitive court appearances, where little or nothing happens, are a punishment in themselves. This shouldn't be the case. The current suspension of the rules of professional conduct shows us that it is now not only possible but also highly efficient to handle many routine requests virtually.

Why do the police rather than prosecutors decide who has to go to court when there is a warrantless arrest? In every other state, the prosecuting attorney decides which cases go before a judge. Connecticut is the final holdout in granting police the authority to decide who has to go to court. The Practice Book currently provides that upon arrest a defendant be presented before the court. A simple rule change and an application of case management technology could easily correct this flaw in our system. It is true that a pilot program is underway to examine this change, but the fact that Connecticut is the last holdout should be enough to prompt action.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a disruptor of most of our systems, but its impact on Connecticut's criminal justice has been profound. Rather than just reacting to this crisis with temporary fixes, we should be looking for the opportunities presented by the technologies we've adopted and used during the pandemic to make lasting improvements in our criminal courts.