Technology has evolved and raided our personal and professional lives. Although the courts are not immune to the advancement and integration of technology, the courts are not keeping up with relevant technological advancements. Historically, courts have been hesitant to embrace new technologies despite the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates the right to a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Likewise, the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct have determined attorneys must “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology . . .” to maintain competence. The bench and bar have a responsibility to keep up with the advancement of technology because technology affects the administration of justice. With the practice of criminal law being far behind in technological advancements and new technology entering the legal field now, criminal lawyers, judges, and other legal community members need to start incorporating this technology and be comfortable using it in their everyday lives.
Continue reading “Virtual Hearings and Blockchain Technology Solutions in Criminal Law”Tag: Criminal Law
Criminal Law: Incompatible Approaches to Interpreters’ Translations: Protecting Defendants’ Right to Confront — State v. Lopez-Ramos, 929 N.W.2D 414 (Minn. 2019).
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently held in State v. Lopez-Ramos that an interpreter’s translation of a defendant’s foreign language statements during a police interrogation did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. The Lopez-Ramos court applied the language conduit theory to determine an interpreter’s translated statements were attributable to the defendant. Finally, the court concluded that because the defendant was the declarant of the statements, the statements were not hearsay.
Continue reading “Criminal Law: Incompatible Approaches to Interpreters’ Translations: Protecting Defendants’ Right to Confront — State v. Lopez-Ramos, 929 N.W.2D 414 (Minn. 2019).”