Judges tell Forsyth commissioners courtroom technology gaps risk fair access; county weighs up to $350,000

Superior‑court judges told Forsyth County commissioners at a June 1 budget briefing that many trial courtrooms in the county courthouse lack modern evidence‑presentation capabilities and remote‑access features, and that the shortfall can affect due process in criminal and civil trials. Judge Pin Bruy Hill, who identified himself as a superior court judge, said the county’s current CRAVE 1.0 systems allow remote testimony but not robust evidence presentation and cited a trial example where lack of presentation tools risked producing an unfair result.

The judges asked the board to consider several steps: move two underused CRAVE 1.0 units from superior courtrooms into district courtrooms where they would be used more; install CRAVE 2.0 in superior trial courtrooms (an integrated evidence‑presentation system); and install secure cell‑phone lockers or alternatives to address accessibility and safety concerns. The judges said six CRAVE 1.0 units are installed in courtrooms and one rolling mobile unit exists but is not in regular use. The packet on file with the county lists the courtrooms and the judges’ preferred reconfiguration.

County staff and commissioners pressed for costs and financing details. County Manager Shantel Robinson and finance staff said courthouse technology must compete with time‑sensitive capital needs such as detention‑center HVAC and elevator repairs. Staff estimated that borrowing $350,000 to cover initial upgrades could add roughly $147,000 in interest costs over a 20‑year amortization; vendors and AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) have offered different configurations and maintenance models. Commissioners asked staff to quantify (a) the capital cost to move or install systems, (b) ongoing maintenance/subscription costs, and (c) whether some needs could be phased to reduce short‑term debt pressure.

Judge Pin Bruy Hill argued the problem is more than convenience. “This is a due process issue and a right‑of‑fair‑access issue that we need here in Forsyth County,” he said, describing a trial elsewhere where an ability to manipulate video evidence at trial changed a jury’s view of the case. Judges also said CRAVE 1.0 has audio/video lag for body‑worn camera playback in traffic dockets, limiting its usefulness for routine evidence presentation.

County officials outlined possible lower‑cost alternatives: installing large flat‑screen TVs in district courtrooms for judge‑decided matters, reassigning existing CRAVE 1.0 units to busier dockets, and using the mobile rolling cart to avoid transporting inmates when the jail cooperates. The judges said the rolling cart is not sufficient in jury trials because a defendant in custody cannot be safely moved so that jurors, counsel and the defendant can all view the same screen simultaneously.

No formal vote was taken. Commissioners asked staff to return with a short set of options and exact costs before the June 4 budget adoption meeting. Manager Robinson agreed to provide CIP trade‑offs and finance scenarios (including potential limited‑obligation bond options and annual maintenance estimates) so the board can decide whether to add funding, phase the work or defer it.

The briefing also included a separate request for approximately $20,000 for cell‑phone lockers or similar accommodations to address accessibility and safety concerns; judges said that item could be handled sooner because it is lower cost and addresses constituents who need phone access for medical or transportation reasons.

Next steps: staff will return with firm capital and maintenance pricing, options to move existing CRAVE units, and financing scenarios in time for the board’s June 4 budget decision.