Class Resources

Managing Technology Projects and Technology Resources

Unit 1: Introduction and Court Overview
Unit 2: Court Information Technology Governance
Unit 3: Project Management Introduction
Unit 4: Court Technology Applications
Unit 5: Project Planning
Unit 6: Other Technologies
Unit 7: IT Policy
Unit 8: Project Implementation and Closure
Unit 9: Court of the Future

Unit 1 – Introduction and Court Overview

Technology has proven a great force for cultural change and has transformed whole industries…Courts are no exception…. – Robert W. Tobin

• CourTools.  National Center for State Courts, Research Division. CourTools is a set of ten trial court performance measures that offers court managers a balanced perspective on court operations.      
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/CourTools/index.html
• CourTopics - Technology InfoCenter. National Center for State Courts, Knowledge and Information Services, CourTopics modules related to technology.
  • http://www.ncsc.org/Information-and-Resources/Browse-Topics-A-Z.aspx
• Court Technology Bulletins. National Center for State Courts Court Technology Bulletins from 1989 through 2003.                              
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Summary/CTBIndex.htm
• Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines. Williamsburg, VA: National Association for Court Management, 2003. 
  • http://nacmnet.org/CCCG/index.html
  • Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines.  National Association for Court Management. Information Technology Management:
    • http://nacmnet.org/CCCG/it-management.html
• Court Purposes and Processes: 
  • http://www.nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_4_corecompetency_itmgmt_cg1.html
• Vision and Leadership: http://www.nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_4_corecompetency_itmgmt_cg2.html
• Fundamentals:            http://www.nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_4_corecompetency_itmgmt_cg3.html
• Technology Management:  http://www.nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_4_corecompetency_itmgmt_cg4.html
• Projects:                             http://www.nacmnet.org/CCCG/cccg_4_corecompetency_itmgmt_cg5.html
• “Information Technology Management Curriculum Guidelines: Introduction: What This Core Competency is and Why it is Important.”  16 Court Manager, no.4 (2001):16.
• Steelman, David C., John A. Goerdt, and James E. McMillan. Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004.
• Tobin, Robert W. An Overview of Court Administration in the United States.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1997.  
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=101
• Tobin, Robert W.  Creating the Judicial Branch: The Unfinished Reform.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1999.
• Future Trends in State Courts. National Center for State Courts, Knowledge and Information Services. Latest information on Technology Trends in State Courts.
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/D_KIS/Trends/index.html
• CTC 2009. Court Technology Conference 2009 will be held in Denver, Colorado, September 2009.
  • http://www.ctc2011.org/Other-Pages/2009-Presentations.aspx    
  • Past CTC Session Articles available online:
    • http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/ctc/articlebyconference.asp
• NCSC.  National Center for State Courts.  
  • The mission of NCSC is to improve the administration of justice through leadership and service to state courts, and courts around the world.   Through original research, consulting services, publications, and national educational programs, NCSC offers solutions that enhance court operations with the latest technology; collects and interprets the latest data on court operations nationwide; and provides information on proven "best practices" for improving court operations. To contact Knowledge and Information Services, please call 800-616-6164.
  • http://www.ncsc.org/
    

TOP

Unit 2 – Court Information Technology Governance

Almost all courts are relying more and more on technology to help them do their work.  Court leaders of the future, to establish vision and strategic direction for technology, will be adopting an IT governance strategy for their courts.  IT governance is a formal structure and process for managing business operations and supporting technology tools.  – Lawrence P. Webster

• Bartel, Tom. Lessons Learned from State-Wide Rollouts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=737
• Carlson, Thomas C.  “The National Information Exchange Model: An Update.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2007.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2007.
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2007/GJXDMTrends2007.pdf
• Clarke, Thomas.  “Technology and Reengineering.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2010.  Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts, Knowledge and Information Services, 2010.                                                                             
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=765
• Gibson, Robin.  “Information Sharing and eXtensible Markup Language.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2006.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2006. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2006/GJXMLTrends2006.pdf
• “IT Governance and Business Outcomes – A Shared Responsibility between IT and Business Leadership.”  National Association of State Chief Information Officers, 2008. 
  • http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-ITGovernanceBusinessOutcomes.pdf
• Reiling, Dory. Technology for Justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial Reform. 2009. (Available in the NCSC Library)
• Webster, Lawrence P. “The NCSC Court IT Governance Model.” Future Trends in State Courts 2006.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2006. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2006/TecManCtITTrends2006.pdf
• Weill, Peter and Jeanne W. Ross. “Ten Principles of IT Governance.” Harvard Business School, July 5, 2004. 
  •  http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4241.html
• Who Decides? – An Overview of How States are Addressing Delegation of Authority and Decisionmaking in Managing Integrated Justice Information Systems: A Report on the Findings of a Survey of the Governance Structure of Statewide and State-Level Integrated Justice Information Systems Initiatives.  Washington, D.C.: National Criminal Justice Association, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2001.
  • http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=437679

TOP

Unit 3 – Project Management Introduction

For IT projects, there's only one real way to tell when a system is truly done. That's when all the stakeholders in the system agree that it's done. Each group must certify that the project sufficiently addresses its concerns. – Paul Glen

• Belisario-McGrath, Gina.  Information Technology Outsourcing From a Court Perspective.  Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Court Management, 2000.                                                      
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=128
• Court Business Process Enhancement Guide: An Aid to Process Improvement and Process Reengineering for Judges, Court Managers, and Court Information Technology Directors.  SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics and National Center for State Courts, 2003.
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/projects/bpeguide/court-bpe-guide.pdf
• Court Technology Model Request for Proposal.  Joint Technology Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management, 2000.  
  • http://www.ncscsurveys.org/courts/modelrfp/general/intro.shtml
• Cross, Carlene.  What are the Information Technology Requirements for the Caribbean Court of Justice? Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2007.     %3

TOP

Unit 4 – Court Technology Applications

Lack of common standards discourages development of sophisticated applications usable in multiple jurisdictions, slowing the pace at which new automation capabilities are applied to solve court needs. – Resolution 13, Conference of Chief Justices

• 2008 Annual Report: IlJIS Implementation Board.  Illinois Integrated Justice Information System, (2008).          
  • http://www.icjia.state.il.us/iijis/public/pdf/IMB/2008_IIJIS%20Annual%20Report.pdf
• Alaska Appellate Courts Case Management System. 
  • http://www.appellate.courts.state.ak.us/
• American National Standards Institute. 
  • http://www.ansi.org/
• Borja, Bid. “Oregon ECourt – Improving Judicial Outcomes and Services.” Future Trends in State Courts 2009. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=718
• Brooks, Patti. Making Good on the Promise of NIEM. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.       
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=742
• California State Auditor Report 2010-102: The Statewide Case Management Project Faces Significant Challenges due to Poor Project Management. Sacramento, CA: California State Auditor, 2011.
  • http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2010-102.pdf
• Caradonna, Peter. New Hampshire e-Court Project: e-Court Issues and Choices: Part 1 and Part 2. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Judicial Branch, National Center for State Courts, 2011.   
  • http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=771 http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=772
• Case File Management Standards. Michigan Supreme Court and State Court Administrative Office (Updated January 2008).                        
  • http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/standards/cf_stds.pdf
• Civil E-Filing: A Guide to External Users. Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, 2007.  
  • http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/super/E-Services/efile/ExtUserManual.pdf

• Crawford, Chris.  “Technology FACTs: The Standards are Coming, The Standards are Coming.”  22 Court Manager, no.4 (Winter 2008): 56.
• Brown, Terry et al. Functional Standards Development for Automated Case Management Systems for Probation. The American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and the National Center for State Courts.                                             
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=108
• Building Exchange Content Using the Global Justice XML Data Model: A User Guide for Practitioners and Developers. United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005. 
  • http://www.search.org/files/pdf/XMLUserGuide.pdf
• Designing GJXML Components Using Reusable Components. Seattle, WA: National Center for State Courts, Court Technology Conference 9, 2005.                                     
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=239
• E-Filing. Alabama Judicial System, 2007.
  • http://efile.alacourt.gov/
• Electronic Exchange of Criminal Case Discovery Materials.  Anchorage, AK: Alaska Judicial Council, 2008.    
  • http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/Reports/ediscovery11-08.pdf
• Electronic Filing Standards Project. California Administrative Office of the Courts, 2001.
  • http://access-to-law.com/elaw/readings/CA_e-filing.ppt&sa=U&ei=NS41T8ndGon00gGRhuDJAg&ved=0CBcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHIBq8-bwzjv_u7Vm6Ql2bVZDK1tg
• GJXDM Release 3.0.3. Office of Justice Programs.  Document and Schemas of the Core of the Global JXDM.  
  • http://it.ojp.gov/jxdm/3.0.3/index.html
• Global Justice XML Data Model (Global JXDM).  U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Information Technology Initiatives.                                  
  • http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=43
• Global Justice Reference Architecture.  U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Judicial Programs.  The Global JRA Specification is intended to be a technical implementation architecture that addresses the full range of information sharing use cases, and provides a comprehensive blueprint for implementing interoperable data sharing services and capabilities,  Three publications are: Specification (February 2007); Web Services Service Interaction Profile (August 2007); and ebXML Messaging Service Interaction Profile (October 2007).                                                                
  • http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=242
• Green, Carola E. “Leverage Technology to Meet the Need for Interpreters.” Future Trends in State Courts 2009. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/accessfair&CISOPTR=184
• GTRI Justice XML Information Center. Georgia Tech Research Institute.  Global JXDM is sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), with development supported by the Global XML Structure Task Force (XSTF) which works closely with researchers at the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI).  
  • http://justicexml.gtri.gatech.edu/index.html
• Iowa Courts & Technology.  Iowa Judicial Branch. Powerpoint Presentation, 2007.
  • http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfdata/frame4458-1127/File6.pdf  
• International Organization for Standardization.    
  • http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm
• Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC).  Indiana Supreme Court. 
  • http://www.in.gov/judiciary/jtac/
• Judiciary Electronic Filing Imaging System (JEFIS) Attorney Manual. Administrative Office of the Courts, State of New Jersey, 2007.                                                            
  • http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/jefis/manual.pdf
• Justice Information Exchange Model (JIEM)   JIEM was developed to help jurisdictions across the country document their business information sharing requirements.              
  • http://www.search.org/programs/info/jiem.asp
• Justice Standards Clearinghouse for Information Sharing.  U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Information Technology Initiatives.                                           
  • http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=133
• Justice XML Resources. Search.org. Justice XML is a tool to facilitate interoperability and information sharing among agencies and systems.                                       
  • http://www.search.org/files/pdf/XMLUserGuide.pdf
• Juvenile Justice XML Report. The IJIS Institute (July 2005). 
  • http://www.kms.ijis.org/db/share/public/Library/Publications/juvenile_justice_xml_final_report_20050630.pdf
• Kasparek, F. Dale.  Technology Assessment: Court Applications of the Northwest Ohio Regional Information System (NORIS), Toledo, Ohio: Final Report.  Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, 2004.                                                                                                               
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=224
• Kaizen: Establishing Circles of Excellence to Create and Improve Puerto Rico’s Unified Case Management System. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=744
• Mankey, Jennifer, Patricia Baca, Stephanie Ronenell, Marilyn Webb and Denise McHugh.  Guidelines for Juvenile Information Sharing.  Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006.                                                                                             
  • https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Search/Abstracts.aspx?id=237372
• Mapp, Charles Allen.  Providing electronic access to justice in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas: Trial Division-Civil. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2008.                                                                                       
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=397
• McMillan, James E. “Electronic Documents: Benefits and Potential Pitfalls.” Future Trends in State Courts 2010. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2010.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=767
• Melnick, Nick. Justice Information Sharing and the Courts: Courts Implementing GJXDM. Seattle, WA: National Center for State Courts, Court Technology Conference 9, 2005.  
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=245
• National Information Exchange Model.  NIEM, the National Information Exchange Model, is a partnership of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. http://www.niem.gov/ 
  • Download Standards package at:
    • https://www.niem.gov/documentsdb/Pages/documents.aspx
• National Institute of Standards and Technology.  NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.                                                                                              
  • http://www.nist.gov/
  NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.                                                                                              
• Norhausen, Michelle.  Assessing Juvenile Court Dependency Records and the Feasibility of Electronic Filing of Dependency Petitions: Superior Court of California, County of Orange.  Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2008.                                                            
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=395
• OASIS Standards.  OASIS is a not-for-profit consortium that drives the development, convergence and adoption of open standards for the global information society.                                                    
  • http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/
• Olson, Travis et al. A Guide to Model Rules for Electronic Filing and Services.  LexisNexis File & Serve, 2003.                                
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/External_ElFileModelRulesLexisPub.pdf
• Public Appellate Case Management System.  Oregon Judicial Department, Information Technology Division, 2006.              
  • http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/docs/ojin/ACMSUserManual.pdf
• Schanker, David. “E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Appraisal.” Future Trends in State Courts 2010. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2010.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/appellate&CISOPTR=194
• Staudt, Ronald.  “Self-Represented Litigants and Electronic Filing.”  Chicago, IL: Chicago-Kent University, 2003.   
  • http://www.lexisnexis.com/efiling/white%20paper_efilinglscportal.pdf
• Steelman, David C. and Penelope J. Wentland.  Business Requirements for Civil and Family Law Case Management System: The Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County.  Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, 2001.                                                         
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=255
• Streamlining Case Management and eFiling with Smart Electronic Forms, Documents and Processes. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.                                                                                      
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=740
• Tack, Carla.  Assimilation Key to Successful Implementation of Statewide Case Management Systems: Arizona Case Study.  Williamsburg, VA:  Institute for Court Management, 2008.                                                          
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1077
• Technology Standards Functional Requirements. COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee of the Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards Project.   
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/standards/
• Tomlinson, Anne M. Electronic Case Filing in the Appellate Courts:  Evaluating the Impact of Electronic Case Filing Technology on Clerk’s Office Operations in the United States Court of Appeals.  Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2006.                    
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=116
• Update: The ICJIS implementation of XML and the Global Justice XML Data Model (GJXDM). Maricopa County, Arizona (April 2005).                
  • http://www.maricopa.gov/icjis/pdf/gjxdm/ICJIS%20XML%20Strategy.pdf
• Webster, Larry. Roadmap for Integrated Justice: A Guide for Planning and Management. Search, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. (March 2004).   
  • http://www.search.org/files/pdf/StrategicRoadmap.pdf
• Webster, Lawrence.  Justice System Software Replacement Options Troup County, Georgia. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, Court Consulting Services, 2009. (Available in the NCSC Library)
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=710
• Welcome to Court Integration Services.  Minnesota Judicial Branch.
  • http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=1362
• Winters, Roger.  “Controversy and Compromise on the Way to Electronic Filing.”   Future Trends in State Courts 2005. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/ElFilingControversyTrends2005.pdf
• Winters, Roger. “Time for Electronic Court Records.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2004. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2004/DocManTrends2004.pdf
• Why is Integration Important? IIJIS - Illinois Integrated Justice Information System.
  • http://www.icjia.state.il.us/IIJIS/public/pdf/iijis_brochure.pdf

Unit 5 – Project Planning

Without a project charter, the goals of the project will be ambiguous and often understood incorrectly by the key stakeholders, each having a different point of interest in the project. The result is a project beset with conflicting priorities, role confusion, and in many cases, as failed project.  – The.Project.Management.Hut

• Burton, Pam. A Process for Web Design Success. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=732.
• California Child Support Automation System: Project Charter.  State of California, 2002.
  • http://www.tryonassoc.com/pdffiles/CCSAS%20Project%20Charter%20Approved%208-1-02.pdf
• Electronic Document Management System: ECM-EDMS Project Charter.  State of New Mexico, 2007.   
  • http://www.slideshare.net/Samuel90/edms-hsd-project-charter
• How Information Technology Can Support Judicial Reform: The Minnesota Experience. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1506
• Information Technology Strategic Plan.  New Jersey, Administrative Office of the Courts, 2003.    
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/External_TecManNJITPlan.pdf
• Information Technology Strategic Plan. Montana Judicial Branch, 2006.      
  • http://courts.mt.gov/content/cao/docs/it_strategic_plan_2010.pdf
•  Judicial Information Strategic Plan.  Trial Court Needs Assessment Project: Office of State Court Administrator, Supreme Court Florida, 2002.           
  • http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/adminorders/2003/forms/Strategic%20plan.pdf
• Mapping Alaska’s Justice InterChanges (MAJIC): Project Charter.  State of Alaska Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board, 2002.     
  • http://www.ajsac.state.ak.us/majic/uploads/ProjectMeeting.Agenda_Minutes.doc&sa=U&ei=deEyT5y7Fqrd0QGo252ECA&ved=0CBEQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHQTVPs1Jmuhxt1XClzN0OVr3MHVQ
• Moore, Mark. California Courts Technology Center/Shared Services: A Five-Year Perspective with Lessons Learned, Pt. 1. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  •  http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=749
• Navajo Nation Integrated Justice Information Sharing Project (NNIJISP): Charter.  Navajo Nation Judicial Branch, Technology Oversight Committee, 2008. 
  • http://www.navajocourts.org/NNIJISP/Charter.pdf
• Nebraska Supreme Court Technology Committee: Strategic Plan 2006 – 2011, November 1, 2006.
  • http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/court-information-tech/pdf/NSC_Technology_Committee_SP_11012006.pdf
• Priorities and Strategies for Minnesota Judicial Branch: Focus on the Future 2007-2009.  Minnesota Judicial Branch, 2007.  (See Goal #1)
  • http://www.mncourts.gov/documents/0/Public/Court_Administration/Strategic_Plan_for_Minnesota_Courts.pdf
• Project Charter.  Alaska Court System, 2004. 
  • http://www.ajsac.state.ak.us/majic/uploads/ACS-DOLCollectionsX.ProjCharter.SIGNED27SEP2004.doc&sa=U&ei=v-EyT5jlE6TC0AHOudzLBw&ved=0CBUQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNGZS6LZwKoWzWZFl4NvwTfLebeeHg
• Project Charter and Vision: ACESS.  Department of Social Services, State of Louisiana, 2004. 
  • http://www.dss.state.la.us/assets/docs/searchable/LRS/ACESS/documents/Access_Proj_Char_Vis.pdf
• Project Charter: North Dakota Criminal Justice Information Sharing: (SAVIN) Statewide Automated Victim Information Notification System.  North Dakota Information Technology Department, 2008.  
  • http://www.nd.gov/cjis/savin/docs/SAVINProjectCharterv3.0.pdf
• Project Charter: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency County Justice & Public Safety Information Sharing (CJPSIS) Program – Year One Project.  Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 2007.  
  • http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt%3Fopen%3D18%26objID%3D351837%26parentname%3DDir%26parentid%3D1%26mode%3D2&sa=U&ei=0-IyT6DnF8PL0QGfy5HMBw&ved=0CBIQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGhoVDyNvJbiTx4cosi1bwDoTT-uA 
• Project Charter: Electronic Traffic Information Processing (eTRIP) Project: Traffic Data Collection Software (TDCS).  Washington Administrative Office of the Courts, 2005.
  • http://trafficrecords.wa.gov/eTRIP/SECTOR/Docs/sector_charter.pdf
• Strategic Information Systems and Technology Plan 2006 – 2011.  North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Fall 2006.
  • http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Technology/Documents/StrategicPlan2006.pdf
• Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006 – 2010.  Judicial Committee on Information Technology (JCIT).  Texas, 2004.                                                  
  • http://www.courts.state.tx.us/jcit/reports/JCITStrategicPlanFY2006-10.pdf
• Strategic Plan for Information Technology for Juvenile Courts. Georgia Courts Automation Commission, December 2005.                                                                    
  • http://www.gcacommission.org/stratplan/Final%20-%20GCAC%20Juvenile%20Court%20-%20IT%20Strategic%20Plan%20v1.0.pdf
• Tips for Making Your Web Site User Friendly. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=745
• Webster, Lawrence. Oklahoma IT Management Assessment: Technical Assistance Final Report. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2008.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=764
• Webster, Lawrence and John Matthias.  South Dakota Unified Judicial System Information Technology Strategic Plan. Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, October 2007.                                                                  
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=346

TOP

Unit 6 – Other Technologies

Technology creates many opportunities for courts.  The opportunity to improve customer service is here now, and courts should consider taking that opportunity.  – James McMillan, Future Trends in State Courts, 2007.

• Cartwright, Robert.  Web Style Guide.  Arizona Judicial Department, 2000.   
  • http://supreme.state.az.us/itd/webstyle.pdf
• Case Activity Notification Service and RSS Feed.  Supreme Court of Ohio.  
  • http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/RSS/default.asp
• Clarke, Thomas M. Court Electronic Public Access Pilot Program Assessment, Phase One: Manatee County, Florida. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, Court Consulting Services, 2009. (Available in the NCSC Library)
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/accessfair&CISOPTR=217
• Davey, Christopher J., Karen Salaz and Regina Koehler. 2011 CCPIO New Media Survey: A Report of the New Media Committee of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers. Washington, DC: Conference of Court Public Information Officers, 2011.
  • http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctmedia&CISOPTR=27
• Digital Recording: Changing Times for Making the Record. Conference of State Court Administrators. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=724
• Donahoe, Gary E. Hon.  The Technology Enhanced Bench: A Trial Judge’s Perspective of the E-Courtroom and Courtroom Technology is for the Judge Too!  Seattle, WA: National Center for State Courts, Court Technology Conference 9, 2005.                                              
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=240
• Drug Court Technology Resource Center.  
  • http://www.drugcourttech.org/
• E-Courtroom. Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. 
  • http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/E-Courtroom/
• eLitigation -- Technology in the Superior Court. Delaware State Courts.
  • http://courts.delaware.gov/Superior/elitigation/index.stm
• Electronic Citation and Warning System (eCWS). Judicial Technology and Automation Committee, Indiana Courts.   
  • http://www.in.gov/judiciary/jtac/2655.htm
• Gusso, Jill.  The New and Improved Court Website: A Review of and Recommended Changes to the South Dakota Unified Judicial System’s Website. Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2008.    
  •  http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=394
• Granger, Justice B.T. Using Litigation Support Software in the Courtroom. Seattle, WA: National Center for State Courts,  Court Technology Conference 9, 2005.                            
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=249
• Hack, Dory.  Data, Delinquency and Drug Treatment:  How Technology Can Aid a Juvenile Drug Court.  New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2003.                
  • http://www.courtinnovation.org/pdf/JIC_handbook.pdf
• Harris, Jim. New Horizons Information Sharing: Video Technology for Courts – Changing Technology and Applications. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=733
• Herman, Madelynn.  “Increasing Access to Justice for the Self-Represented Through Web Technologies.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2007.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2007.
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2007/ProSeWebTrends2007.pdf
• Herman, Madelynn.  Meeting the Web Information Needs of the Courts: An Evaluation of the NCSC Court Information Database.  Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2003.                                                         
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=119
• Hermes, Bruce.  Webcasting in the Supreme Court of Texas.  Technology Experience Bulletin TEB: 2007-03, Court Information Technology Officers Consortium, 2007.      
  • http://www.citoc.org/docs/teb-webcast.pdf
• Internet Guide to the Idaho Courts.  Idaho Court System, 2005.                
  • http://www.isc.idaho.gov/media03.pdf
• "King County Wash. Electronic Court Records Honored." Government Technology Magazine, (September 2007).  
  • http://www.govtech.com/gt/148972
• Krause, Jason.  “Settling on the Web.” 93 ABA Journal (October 2007): 43.
• Latham, Walter.  “Web Logs: Increase Courts’ Ability to Quickly Communicate with Constituents.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2004. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2004/IntCtsTrends2004.pdf
• Law School Connect: Connecting Law Firms with Legal Talent Through Technology. Center for Legal and Court Technology, 2009.
  •  http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=631.
• Lewis, Wendy.  Transforming the Judiciary’s Court Reporting System: Building an Effective Court Reporting Services Unit.  Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2007.                                                           
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=112
• The Little Template That Could: Helping Trial Judges Take, Organize and Extract Information from Electronic Trial Notes Simply. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  •  http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/judicial&CISOPTR=301
• McCaw, Lesley.  Judicial Website Re-Design. Maine Office of Information Technology, May 15, 2008.
  • http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=oit_news&id=55856&v=ViewArticle
• Munsterman, G.T., and Paula L. Hannaford-Agor.  The Promise and Challenges of Jury System Technology.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2003.  
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/juries&CISOPTR=100
• Neimon, Michael G.  Can Interactive Video Work in Waukesha County? An Analysis and Survey.   Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, 2001.                            
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=120
• Osborn, Elizabeth.  “Courts in the Classroom: Indiana’s Educational Outreach Through the Web.” 27 Justice System Journal, number 3, (2006): 286.
• Osborn, Elizabeth.  “Webcasting: It’s Not Just About Oral Arguments Anymore.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2005.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/AppCtsTecTrends2005.pdf
• “Payment of Court Fees Via the Internet Grows in Popularity.” 38 The Third Branch, no. 11 (November 2006). 
  • http://www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch/06-11-01/Payment_of_Court_Fees_Via_the_Internet_Grows_in_Popularity.aspx
• Perry, Rory L. II.  Syndication and Weblogs: Publish and Distribute Your Court Information to the Web.  Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 2002.  
  • http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/clerk/rssresources.htm
• “Pilot Project Will Post Digital Audio Recordings Online.” 39 The Third Branch, no. 6 (June 2007).  
  • http://www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch/07-06-01/Pilot_Project_Will_Post_Digital_Audio_Recordings_Online.aspx
• Report to the Arizona Judicial Council From the Criminal Rules Video-Conference Advisory Committee. Arizona Supreme Court, 2009.
  •  http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=712.
• Schmidt, Patrick and Paul Martin.  “To the Internet and Beyond: State Supreme Courts on the World Wide Web.”  84 Judicature No. 6 (May-June 2001): 314.
• Schanker, David. E-Filing in State Appellate Courts: An Appraisal. National Conference of Appellate Court Clerks, 2010. (Available in the NCSC Library)
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/appellate&CISOPTR=189
• Seguin, Patricia. The Use of Social Media in Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2011.
  • http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctmedia&CISOPTR=25
• Shelton, Donald E. Hon. “Technology, Popular Culture and the Court System.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2006.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2006. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2006/JurInnTrends2006.pdf
• Smoothstone Partners with Circuit Clerk to Provide Wireless Internet Access in Jefferson County Judicial Center. Kentucky Court of Justice, 2007.                         
  • http://courts.ky.gov/pressreleases/PRB11162007.htm
• Social Networks, Computer Technology and the Courts. CD-ROM/DVD. (Available in the NCSC Library.)
•  The Emergence of E-Everything: Resolution 13.  Conference of Chief Justices, 2006.  
  • http://ccj.ncsc.dni.us/CourtAdminResolutions/resol13EmergenceOfEEverything.html
• The Use of Technology in the Jury Room to Enhance Deliberations: Courtroom 21 Research Report.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts and Courtroom 21, William and Mary Law School, 2002.                                                                                                              
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=227
• Van Duizend, Richard.  “Electronic Discovery.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2007.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2007. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2007/ElDiscTrends2007.pdf
• Walker, J. Douglas.  “Radio-Frequency Identification: Why the Justice System Should Tune In.” Future Trends in State Courts 2005. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/StoEviRFIDTrends2005.pdf
• Walker, J. Douglas.  “Severing the Tether: The Rise of Wireless Networks.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2004. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2004.
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2004/TecManTrends2004.pdf
• “Web Opens Access in High Profile Case.” 38 The Third Branch, no. 9 (September 2006).
  • http://www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch/06-09-01/Web_Opens_Access_in_High_Profile_Case.aspx
• Webber, Winnie L. Transitioning from Pen to Digital Ink: Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois. (Available in the NCSC Library)
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=763
• Webster, Lawrence P. Evaluation of Videoconferencing technology Mesa Arizona Municipal Court. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, Court Consulting Services Division, 2009. (Available in the NCSC Library)
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=708
• Willis, Willett R. and Mary Beth Kirven.  Assessment of Video Conferencing in the South Dakota Unified Judicial System.  Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, 2004.  
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=254

TOP

Unit 7 – IT Policy

IT systems are vulnerable to a variety of disruptions, ranging from mild (e.g., short-term power outage, disk drive failure) to severe (e.g. equipment destruction, fire) from a variety of sources such as natural disasters to terrorists actions.  While many vulnerabilities may be minimized or eliminated through technical, management or operation solutions as part of the organization’s risk management effort, it is virtually impossible to completely eliminate all risks. – National Association of State Chief Information Officers.

• Carlson, Alan.  “Public Access to Court Records: Reducing the Risk of Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2007.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2007.                   
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2007/PriPubTrends2007.pdf
• Carlson, Alan and Martha Wade Steketee.  Public Access to Court Records: Implementing the CCJ/COSCA Guidelines: Final Project Report.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/accessfair&CISOPTR=196
• Electronic Access Policy for Circuit Court Records of the Illinois Courts.  Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, 2004.                             
  • http://www.state.il.us/COURT/SupremeCourt/Policies/Pdf/PubAccess.pdf
• Farrell, Kathleen. Safeguarding Court Records: Paper, Microfiche, and Automated Data. United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York. 
  • http://www.9-11summit.org/materials9-11/911/acrobat/26/C4SafeguardingCourtRecords/VitalRecords.pdf
• Global Security Working Group.  United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.                         
  • http://www.iir.com/Information_Sharing/global/GSWG.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
• IBM Business Continuity and Recovery Consulting. Disaster Recovery Plan for Central Technical Center. May 23, 2003.  
  • http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/en/it-services/business-continuity-and-resiliency-services.html
• Information Quality: The Foundation for Justice Decision Making.  United States Department of Justice, revised 2008.     
  • http://www.it.ojp.gov/documents/IQ_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf
• IT Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Tool Kit: Planning for the Next Disaster. National Association of State Chief Information Officers, 2007.    
  • http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-DRToolKit.pdf
• Larson, Susan Jennen.  “Public Access and the National Landscape of Date Regulation.  Future Trends in State Courts 2005.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/PriPubRecordsTrends2005.pdf
• Library Disaster Preparedness and Recovery Plan. University of Virginia Library, 2005.
  • http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/preservation/disaster/disaster-plan-2005.pdf
• McMillan, James E. “Greening in the Courts.” Future Trends in State Courts 2009. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=713
• National Center for State Courts, News Alert. Do You Have a Disaster Recovery Plan? 2005.    
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/What'sNew/NewsAlerts/NewsAlertHaveRecoveryPlan.html
• Pandemic Planning and Response for State IT: Where’s My Staff. National Association of State Chief Information Officers, 2007.                                               
  • http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-PandemicPlanning.pdf
• Policies and Resolutions.  Texas Court Online, Judicial Committee on Information Technology.  
  • http://www.courts.state.tx.us/jcit/resolutions/policies.asp
• Privacy Policy Guidance. Illinois Integrated Justice Information System Privacy Policy Subcommittee (October 2006). 
  • http://www.icjia.state.il.us/iijis/public/pdf/PRV/PPG_vol1_October2006.pdf
• Protecting Privacy in Integrated Justice Systems: Issue Brief.  NGA Center for Best Practices, 2006.                                           
  • http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-hsps-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/protecting-privacy-in-integrated.html
• Sudbeck, Lynn E.  “Pacing Court Records Online: Balancing the Public and Private Interests.” 27 Justice System Journal, number 3, (2006): 268.                                   
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=356
• Swanson, Marianne, Amy Wohl, Lucinda Pope, Tim Grance, Joan Hash, and Ray Thomas. Contingency Planning Guide for Information Technology Systems: Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002.   
  • http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/bulletns/bltnjun02.htm

TOP

Unit 8 – Project Implementation and Closure

At periodic intervals, policy leaders of the judicial branch must reassess the position and trajectory of the court system with respect to technology to ensure that resources are being directed where they are needed most. – Lawrence Webster

• Arkfeld, Louraine E.  “Life as a Wired Judge:  Reflections on the Use of Technology by Courts.”  27 Justice System Journal number 3 (2006):243.                                                
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=358
• Bugg, Larry. Advantages of Using Internal Development Staff for Technology in Lieu of Outside Vendors. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=736
• Clark, Dwight, Christopher Crawford, Craig Husa, Jim Roggero, Moira O’Leary Rowley, and John Wyatt. Technology Projects – What Goes Wrong and Lessons Learned.  Baltimore, MD: National Center for State Courts, Court Technology Conference 7, 2001.
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/ctc/showarticle.asp?id=27
• Conference of State Court Administrators.  Position Paper on Court Leadership in Justice Information Sharing.  Arlington, VA: Government Relations Office, National Center for State Courts, 2002.  
  • http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/WhitePapers/CourtLeadershipJusticeInfoSharing.pdf
• Donahoe, Honorable Gary E.  Courtroom Technology is for Judges Too. Seattle, WA: National Center for State Courts, Court Technology Conference 9, 2005.                                                           
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=240
• Donahoe, Gary E. Hon.  The Technology Enhanced Bench: A Trial Judge’s Perspective of the E-Courtroom and Courtroom Technology is for the Judge Too!  Seattle, WA: National Center for State Courts, Court Technology Conference 9, 2005.                                             
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=240
• Goldstein, Harry.  Who Killed the Virtual Case File? How the FBI Blew More than $100 Million on Case Management Software It Will Never Use.  IEEE Spectrum Online, October 2007.  
  • http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep05/1455
• Hedge, Hon. Brook. Disciplined Processes: A Bridge from Chaos to Certainty. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=754
• Position Paper on Court Leadership on Justice Information Sharing.  Conference of State Court Administrators, August 2002. 
  • http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/WhitePapers/CourtLeadershipJusticeInfoSharing.pdf
• Steelman, David C.  Court Business Process Enhancement Manual: An Aid to Process Improvement and Process Reengineering for Judges, Court Managers, and Court Information Technology Directors.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2003.                                                                                  
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1040
• Webster, Lawrence.  Automating Court Systems.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1996.   (Seminal publication.)                                                                                                             
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=157
• Webster, Larry. Roadmap for Integrated Justice: A Guide for Planning and Management. Search, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. (March 2004).   
  • http://www.search.org/files/pdf/StrategicRoadmap.pdf

TOP

Unit 9 – Court of the Future

E-filing is surely “the wave of the future” and will save money and time for both courts and attorneys. – John T. Matthias

• Adams, Chris. Using Technology to Train a State Judiciary. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1504.
• Alabama Adopts e-Everything Attitude. Alabama Court System. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=734
• Bueno, Tania C.D. et al.  E-Courts in Brazil: Conceptual Model for Entirely Electronic Court Process. QMW, London: 18^th BILETA Conference, 2003.
  • http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.97.723
• Case Activity Notification Service and RSS Feed.  Supreme Court of Ohio.  
  • http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/RSS/default.asp
• Cerrillo, Agusti (editor).  E-Justice: Using Information Communication Technologies in the Court System. Catalonia, Spain: Information Science Reference, 2008. (Title available in the NCSC Library.)
• Clarke, Tom.  “Court Filing Blue Update.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2005. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005.
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/ElFilingCtFilingBlueUpTrends2005.pdf
• Clarke, Tom.  “Trends in Appellate Court Technology.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2005.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/AppCtsTecTrends2005.pdf
• Courtroom 2000. New York State Supreme Court, New York County - Civil Branch (March 2006).    
  • http://www.courts.state.ny.us/supctmanh/courtroom_2000.htm
• Courtroom 23. Orange County, FL.                            
  •  http://www.ninja9.org/courtadmin/mis/courtroom_23.htm                                                    Courtroom 23 Slide Show.
  • Orange County, FL. 
    • http://www.ninja9.org/publications/Slide%20Shows/Courtroom%2023%20Demo_files/frame.htm
• Center for Legal and Court Technology and the Courtroom 21 Project. William and Mary School of Law and The National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA.  Courtroom 21, unveiled in August, 1993, is the most technologically advanced courtroom in the world.  The courtroom is a joint project of the William and Mary School of Law and The National Center for State Courts.     
  • http://www.legaltechcenter.net/
• Electronic Citation and Warning System (eCWS). Judicial Technology and Automation Committee, Indiana Courts.  
  • http://www.in.gov/judiciary/jtac/2655.htm
• Espinosa, Philip G. A Word from the Future: The Virtually Paperless Court of Appeals. Future Trends in State Courts 2009. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2009.  
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=715.
• Getting the Job Done: E-Courts 2008.  Las Vegas, NV: National Center for State Courts, 2008.  (Available in the NCSC Library.)
• High Tech Courtroom 625. The Philadelphia Courts.                             
  • http://courts.phila.gov/pdf/brochures/courtroom-625.pdf
• Ikens, Laura "Trends in Courtroom Technology: Has the Picture Changed?." Legal Tech Newsletter (January 2007).                                         
  •  http://www.abanet.org/tech/ltrc/publications/legaltech07.pdf
• Innovations in the California Courts: Shaping the Future of Justice. Administrative Office of the Courts, California. (Available in the NCSC Library)
  • http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/innovations09.pdf
• Lederer, Frederic. Courtroom Technology: A Status Report. College of William and Mary School of Law (2005).
  • http://www.legaltechcenter.net/download/articles/Courtroom%20Technology,%20A%20Status%20Report.pdf
• Lederer, Frederic. The Road To the Virtual Courtroom. (December 2002).                 
  • http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Lederer.pdf
• Matthias, John T.  “E-Filing Expansion in State, Local, and Federal Courts 2007.  Future Trends in State Courts 2007.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2007. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2007/ELFileTrends2007.pdf
• McKay, Jim. "Technology on Trial." Government Technology Magazine. (December 2002).   
  • http://www.govtech.com/gt/31398
• McMillan, James E.  “Digital Rights Management (DRM) Technology Will Change.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2005.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/DocManDigitalRightsTrends2005.pdf
• McMillan, James E.  “Tablet Computers and the Courts 2006.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2006.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2006. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2006/TecManPCTabletTrends2006.pdf
• McMillan, James E.  “Using Technology to Improve Customer Service.” Future Trends in State Courts 2007.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2007. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2007/TecManTrends2007.pdf
• New Search Engine for Court System.  UCS Benchmarks, New York State Unified Court System, Summer 2006.                        
  • http://www.courts.state.ny.us/publications/benchmarks/issue4/ucstechnology.shtml
• Palm Beach County Banner Evaluation.  Denver, CO: National Center for States Courts, 2008.                                                                                       
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=401
• Seckel, Allan. Judging in 2020: In a Courthouse or in Cyberspace. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, CTC presentation, 2009.
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/judicial&CISOPTR=298
• The Emergence of E-Everything: Resolution 13.  Conference of Chief Justices, 2006.  
  • http://ccj.ncsc.dni.us/CourtAdminResolutions/resol13EmergenceOfEEverything.html
• The Use of Technology in the Jury Room to Enhance Deliberations: Courtroom 21 Research Report.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts and Courtroom 21, William and Mary Law School, 2002.                                                                     
  • http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/tech&CISOPTR=227
• Walker, J. Douglas.  “Image Recognition Biometric Technologies Made Strides.” Future Trends in State Courts 2006.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2006. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2006/DocManBiometricsTrends2006.pdf
• Walker, J. Douglas.  “Intelligent Video Technologies Enhance Court Operations and Security.”  Future Trends in State Courts 2006.  Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2006. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2006/VidConIntelligentVideoTrends2006.pdf
• Walker, J. Douglas.  “Radio-Frequency Identification: Why the Justice System Should Tune In.” Future Trends in State Courts 2005. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 2005. 
  • http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/2005/StoEviRFIDTrends2005.pdf

http://nstc.sirsi.net/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/0/0/49

NCSC digital resources are located in the Digital Archive available at:

http://www.ncsconline.org/D_KIS/Library/ncsc_digital_archive_home.htm

Call 1-800-616-6164 or email [email protected] for more information.

Knowledge and Information Services
National Center for State Courts
Williamsburg, Virginia
February 2012

TOP