Abstract

Jury Bailiffs serving the circuit courts in the state of Wisconsin receive little or no formal orientation and training on the duties and responsibilities of bailiffs. Money was raised through a variety of sources to develop and implement the training program. A committee of attorneys, judges, clerks of court, district court administrators, bailiffs and jury clerks created the training topics for the program. A training team of five experts developed the curriculum and powerpoint presentation. Options on how the training would be presented statewide were discussed and included: 1) having the training team travel to five or six locations to train, 2) training chief judges and District Court Administrators to conduct the bailiff’s training in their respective districts, and 3) conducting a three hour video conference training program for all 72 counties in the State.

 

Introduction

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is the superintending authority over all courts in the state. The Court appoints 10 chief judges and district court administrators to assist in managing the courts business. The 10 chief judges meet regularly with the Director of State Courts Office and the district court administrators to discuss issues of statewide concern. In 2000 the Committee of Chief Judges formed a subcommittee called the Subcommittee on Juror Treatment and Selection to address jury management issues. The subcommittee’s purpose is to review current practices, statutes, and best practices in order to make recommendations to improve jury practice in Wisconsin. At the October 2004 subcommittee meeting it was recommended that grant money be pursued for the purpose of statewide training of jury bailiffs.

 

A grant proposal was submitted to the State Bar requesting $2,000.00 for the purpose of training jury bailiffs. A grant proposal for $6000.00 was also submitted to the American Bar Association—Democracy by the Dozen--Program. It was the belief of committee members that many bailiffs in the state receive little or no formal training regarding the specific duties and responsibilities of bailiffs.

 

There was anecdotal information on what some bailiffs have done or said over the years that caused mistrials. A few counties have written policies and procedures for jury bailiffs and most counties have some form of orientation and training.

 

The grant to the State Bar Association was accepted and moneys were awarded to the Racine Bar Association on behalf of the subcommittee. The American Bar Association rejected the training proposal.

 

It was decided that more funds would be needed to conduct the training. Requests for funds were sent to approximately 12 County Bar Associations in the State. Four County Bar Associations contributed $500.00 each and 2 law firms contributed $400.00 to assist in funding the training. (It was later learned that one attorney contributed $500.00 on behalf of the Kenosha Bar Association).

 

Description of Process

In February of 2005 a meeting was held with a newly organized jury bailiff training team whose purpose was to develop a training curriculum. This new committee consisted of attorneys, judges, clerks of court, district court administrators, bailiffs and jury clerks. This committee developed the primary topics for the training.

 

After this committee completed its work a smaller training team was organized to take the primary topics and develop an article more specifically discussing those topics. The article contained the following topics:

 

• Juries in Wisconsin
• Jury Selection
• Choosing the Jury—Voir dire
• General Duties and Responsibilities
• Juror Accommodations
• Courtroom Security
• Media: Photography and Recording
• Demeanor and communication with Jurors
• Other Trial Considerations
• Brief History of trial by jury
• Definitions

 

From this group 5 trainers were selected to develop a powerpoint presentation and teach the program. This team consisted of District Court Administrator Kerry Connelly, Hon. Gerald P. Ptacek, Hon. Jean W. DiMotto, Chief Circuit Court Officer Susan Schaffer, Deputy William Blumer and Clerk of Circuit Court Diane Fremgen. This team started their work in late 2005. Besides developing the curriculum the team had to decide how best to conduct the training. Two primary options were discussed:

 

Blumer, Ptacek, Lehman (ICS staff), Connelly,
Fremgen, DiMotto, Schaffer

 

• Have the training team travel around the state to 5 or 6 locations and train bailiffs.
• Have the training team train chief judges and DCA’s to go back to their respective districts and conduct the training of bailiffs.

 

Each option had its problems. The first option would be too time consuming and expensive and it was felt that the training in the second option may get lost in translation.

A third option came later in the process.

 

Necessity is the Mother of Invention

Instructional Communications Systems (ICS), University of Wisconsin-Extension at The Pyle Center was contacted to discuss the possibility of conducting the training via videoconference. This option would allow the team to conduct one training session from a central location to multiple remote sites across the state. In addition, the session could be streamed live on the Internet for those who were not able to travel to a videoconference location and, in addition, the session could later be edited and burned to a DVD for use on Courtnet (Wisconsin’s Circuit Court internal website for court staff). Clerks of court would then be able to have new jury bailiffs view the training as part of their orientation and training.

The ICS staff at The Pyle Center were extremely helpful and willing to take on a project of this nature and size (the largest videoconference to date). After 5 to 6 months of powerpoint redesign, rehearsals, remote site testing and configuration and backup measures, the event took place. More than 400 bailiffs, court staff and judges at 53 locations participated in and completed the three-hour jury bailiff training.

 

Jury Bailiff Training via Videoconference

 

Results

Each site that participated in the training was provided a 40 question “true” and “false” test to provide to participants at the conclusion of the training. The test also included an evaluation of the video training. Test forms were sent to the District Court Administrators Office for correction and tabulation.

355 tests/evaluations were returned. Collectively, the participants received an “A” for a grade. The responses on the use of video conferencing as a teaching tool proved to be very positive (despite some locations experiencing technical problems). Over 70% of the respondents found the use of video conferencing to be above average to great. Furthermore, most respondents said they would take another video conferencing class and would recommend this training session to a colleague.

 

Lessons Learned and Tips

1. From the courts’ perspective, I wish I learned early on about the possibility of using videoconferencing for this training. I learned about it as the planning process moved along. Had I learned about it earlier, it would have saved me time in planning.  I would have chosen videoconferencing from the start.
   
2. More time could have been spent with the site coordinators to ensure that the videoconferencing equipment was working properly and that they knew that they should mute their microphones and eliminate side conversations and noise during the presentations.
   
3. For the question and answer session I could have had several people at the remote sites start out with prepared questions. This would have stimulated the discussion during the first Q & A, when very few asked questions. During the second Q & A, when people were more comfortable with the technology, there were quite a few comments and questions.  
   
4. We were fortunate to have a group of very talented and knowledgeable speakers.  My advice to those who are planning a presentation like this one is to choose speakers who are able to communicate effectively in this type of format.
   
5. From the ICS perspective, it would have been very helpful to set up a site coordinator audioconference prior to the actual event to make sure that each coordinator was clear about all responsibilities. This, along with the site coordinator printed information each had received, would have helped things run even more smoothly.
   
6. For such a large and complex videoconference, it was necessary to have contingency plans: a) provide audioconferencing for those who could not receive videoconferencing, b) provide comprehensive print materials that would include the session Powerpoint storyboard in the event that there were technical difficulties, c) capture the session on webcasting for streaming, and d) capture the session on video for documenting the event and for later editing and replay on Courtnet.
   
7. The excellent planning that Kerry Connelly and his staff did reinforced the ICS philosophy of the importance of planning and practicing. By beginning months ahead of time, developing a timeline, meeting with instructional design and technical staff, being flexible about revisions, obtaining copyright clearance for movie clips, and rehearsing several times, they were able to meet their goals.

 

[Home] [Order the Book] [Accessibility Statement]
[Other Distance Education Resources] [The Essential Videoconferencing Guide] [Training for Videoconferencing] [Instructional Design at ICS] [Interactive Services at ICS]

 

If you have trouble accessing this page, require this information in an alternative format or wish to request a reasonable accommodation because of a disability contact: Rich Berg berg@ics.uwex.edu.

© Copyright 2006 Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin

Last updated December, 2006