How Georgia Courthouse Staff Helped the High Court Hold Oral Arguments From Miles Away
Chief Justice Harold Melton commended his colleagues on the bench for their willingness "to try whatever is necessary to keep the courts moving."
April 20, 2020 at 06:18 PM
4 minute read
It wasn't the room where it happened. But it was a close as technology during the coronavirus pandemic would allow.
The Supreme Court of Georgia's remote oral arguments on Monday took place, instead, in "the Zoom where it happened"—a term first coined by the sequestered cast of "Hamilton"—as justices and attorneys patched in via the video teleconferencing software.
Chief Justice Harold Melton sat alone in the new Nathan Deal Judicial Center courtroom. His eight colleagues, attired like Melton in their black judicial robes, all were sheltering in place across the state. But the background image behind each justice was that of the courtroom where Melton presided alone—the brainchild of Bob McAteer, the high court's director of technology services.
"We are committed to continue the court's business with as little disruption as possible," Melton said when the high court convened Monday. He commended his colleagues on the bench for their willingness "to try whatever is necessary to keep the courts moving."
He also assured the attorneys who argued via Zoom, "We won't be deciding the cases based on technical problems."
And he welcomed newly minted Justice Carla Wong McMillian, a former judge on the Georgia Court of Appeals, to her first oral argument since she took her oath of office in an open-air ceremony adjacent to the state Capitol on April 10.
Two oral arguments, both appeals of murder convictions, were conducted without a noticeable hitch.
Melton said in an interview afterward that he and his fellow justices talked beforehand about how they would present themselves in their Zoom debut, including the background behind them. "We wanted something that was not distracting, that was uniform, that was dignified," he said.
"We tried to mimic everything that happens in a real courtroom," he added, including the courtroom deputy's call to order and the time clock, which was delegated its own frame on Zoom.
Melton said the justices "were a little anxious about all the things that could go wrong" and that, a week ago, the court conducted a dress rehearsal "We all felt very positive about," he said of his fellow judges, adding that "We were a little anxious about all the things that could go wrong."
He said the judges put on their robes a week ago and called an online dress rehearsal.
Melton said Monday's successful Zoom arguments "definitely tells us we can do more " via Zoom. But, he added, "We have to think about what would be the circumstances when we would allow for it on a uniform basis. I'm not sure what the test would be if we were to go forward in the future."
Veteran Atlanta criminal defense attorney Brian Steel became the first lawyer to argue remotely before the high court in the current pandemic.
Steel praised the pre-argument preparation that included help and advice on choosing the proper location, appropriate background and proper lighting.
He said the court's IT staff gave him telephone numbers to call if there were video glitches and a way to proceed solely with audio, if needed. He said the court staff was familiar with Zoom experiments in other states, including Texas, for glitches and how they could be addressed in real time.
Steel said he set up a table in a bedroom and argued his case via his iPad.
He said the high court instructed attorneys that business attire was required, but that they could choose either to sit or stand. Steel stood. "Whenever I am addressing the highest court in our state, or any court, I always stand out of respect," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readAppeals Court Removes Fulton DA From Georgia Election Case Against Trump, Others
6 minute readFamily of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
5 minute readFulton Judge Rejects Attempt by Trump Campaign Lawyer to Invalidate Guilty Plea in Georgia Election Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250