Judges urge restraint on mandatory remote criminal proceedings; public defenders cite travel burden

Judges and defense counsel told the Law and Justice Interim Committee that while remote appearances via audio‑visual tools can save travel time and work well for certain procedural hearings, in‑person presence remains the default for substantive criminal processes and some civil matters.

Judge Michael Swingly emphasized due‑process limits. He recounted a Supreme Court decision that underscored personal in‑court testimony as the default requirement and warned video testimony “requires a high burden of showing necessity, not just convenience.”

Judges across jurisdictions described logistical challenges: courtrooms with limited internet or recording capability, the need for confidential attorney‑client consultation (hard to arrange in small facilities), and the difficulty of handling exhibits and witness foundation over remote platforms. Judge Matt Cuff and Maureen O’Connor (city and limited‑jurisdiction judges) said local court capacity and travel realities vary widely in Montana’s large, rural state.

Michelle Lyday of the Office of Public Defender said the office logged substantial travel hours (cited in prior materials as about 16,000 hours) and urged rules that permit sensible use of remote appearances while protecting clients’ rights. She said their internal policy favors in‑person representation for dispositive hearings and requires court permission for exceptions.

Panelists urged a balanced approach: permit remote appearances for status and scheduling events, preserve in‑person requirements for arraignments, omnibus and evidentiary hearings where confrontation and confidential consultation are critical, and create consistent expectations to reduce last‑minute confusion.

The committee took no action at this meeting but gathered testimony to inform any future statutory changes.