THE FLORIDA BAR RE: RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

Fla. | 1985-01-02
No. 65282
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
462 So. 2d 444 Florida Supreme Court (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The Court adopts Rule of Judicial Administration 2.071, permitting the use of communication equipment for certain court proceedings.


Headnotes

[1] Communication equipment used in court proceedings must permit full participation by all parties, including the right to raise objections and conduct cross-examination.

[2] Courts may direct the use of communication equipment for motion hearings, pretrial conferences, or status conferences, provided parties receive notice and an opportunity…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The Florida Bar Judicial Administration Rules Committee proposed a new rule to formally adopt the use of communication equipment for motion hearings, …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar Judicial Administration Rules Committee has submitted for our consideration a proposed Rule of Judicial Administration 2.071 which would permit the use of communication equipment in conducting motion hearings, pretrial conferences, and status conferences. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla.Const. The rule is intended to formally adopt standard procedures for using communication equipment which we are advised is currently being informally used in many courts within the state. Because we saw merit and urgency in the proposal but did not wish to adopt it as an emergency rule without the advice of The Florida Bar and interested individuals, we referred the proposal to the Committee for expeditious consideration. We have since received input from that Committee, from The Florida Bar Board of Governors, from circuit and county judges, and from other interested individuals. There is general agreement that such a rule should be adopted but some disagreement as to the scope and content of the rule. We have carefully considered the various comments and recommendations submitted to us and concluded that we should adopt the appended rule. The following is a brief explanation of the rule as approved by this Court.

Subsection (a) provides by definition that the equipment must permit full participation by all parties to the proceeding, including the right to raise objections and conduct cross examination.

Subsection (b) provides that communication equipment may be used for motion hearings, pretrial conferences, or status conferences as directed by the court, either on its own motion or on request of a party. The parties must be given notice, as on any motion, and permitted to be heard prior to directing the use of communication equipment. The decision to use or not use communication equipment, except as noted in subsection (c), would be in the sound discretion of the court. There is no requirement that the motion be in writing or that it be submitted in a fixed time period before the proceeding is to be conducted.

Subsection (c) permits the use of communication equipment, with the consent of all the parties, to take the testimony of a witness. Where juvenile or criminal proceedings are involved, the defendant must be informed of the right to confront witnesses and an informed waiver must be obtained. It should be noted that none of the authorized usages involve the presence of a jury, that by definition the communication equipment must permit objections and cross examinations, and that all parties have an absolute right to prohibit the taking of testimony of a witness by communication equipment. The absolute right must be exercised, however, prior to commencement of the proceeding. Once the proceeding begins, the decision to curtail or abort the use of communication equipment will be in the sound discretion of the court. Subsection (d) provides for the taxing of costs.

The rule will become effective, nunc pro tunc, January 1, 1985, at 12:01 a.m. No rehearing will be allowed.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur. RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.071

USE OF COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT

(a) Definition

Communication equipment means a conference telephone or other electronic device that permits all those appearing or participating to hear and speak to each other, provided that all conversation of all parties is audible to all persons present.

(b) Use

A county, circuit or district court judge may, upon the Court’s own motion or on the request of a party, direct that communication equipment be used for a motion hearing, pretrial conference, or a status conference. A judge must give notice to the parties and consider any objections they may have to the use of communication equipment before directing that communication equipment be used. The decision to use communication equipment over the objection of parties will be in the sound discretion of the trial court, except as noted below.

(c) Testimony

A judge may, with the consent of all the parties, direct that the testimony of a witness be taken through communication equipment. In juvenile and criminal proceedings the defendant must make an informed waiver of any confrontation rights that may be abridged by the use of communication equipment.

(d) Burden of Expense

The cost for the use of the communication equipment is the responsibility of the moving party unless otherwise directed by the Court.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • DOE v. State, 217 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2017)
    …or comparable two-way visual capabilities, the court in its discretion may modify the procedures set forth in this rule to accommodate the technology utilized. Rule 2.530 was adopted by this Court in 1985. See The Fla. Bar Re: Fla. R. Jud. Admin., 462 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1985). When adopting the rule, this Court stated: The rule is intended to formally adopt standard procedures for using communication equipment which we are advised is currently being informally used in many courts within the state. Because we…
  • DOE v. State, 210 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
    …Safety and Motor Vehicles. See art. V, § 1, Fla. Const. ("The legislature may establish by general law a civil traffic hearing officer system for the purpose of hearing civil traffic infractions.”). . Cf. The Fla. Bar Re: Rules of Judicial Admin., 462 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla.1985) (observing, in adopting the rules of judicial administration, "that all parties have an absolute right to prohibit the taking of testimony of a witness by communication equipment”); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.530(b) (authorizing use of co…
  • Rubin v. Burack, 705 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
    …, however, pri- or to the commencement of the proceeding. Once the proceeding begins, the decision to curtail or abort the use of the communication equipment will be in the sound discretion of the court. The Florida Bar Re Rules of Judicial Admin., 462 So. 2d 444, 445 (Fla.1985). Here, the former husband timely objected to the wife’s motion to allow the taking of the witness’ testimony by telephone. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinio…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw