|Updates:||Adopted August 12, 2022, effective September 1, 2022|
Applicable to all courts
This Standing Order is effective September 1, 2022, and rescinds and supersedes Superior Court Standing Order 1–20, which became effective February 1, 2020, and Superior Court Standing Order 4–21, which became effective July 12, 2021. This Standing Order shall remain in effect until further order of the court.
Consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights, and in the interest of justice, certain criminal and civil proceedings may be conducted by videoconference pursuant to this Standing Order.
Hearings in criminal cases are presumptively held by videoconference for:
Hearings in criminal cases are presumptively held in person for:
There is no presumptive method for conducting an arraignment. Judges are encouraged to conduct arraignments by videoconference where the defendant is in custody and waives physical presence, absent reasons for the defendant and counsel to be physically present.
A criminal hearing designated as presumptively in person pursuant to this Standing Order may be held by videoconference in a judge’s discretion, consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights. A judge should consider the nature of the proceeding, including whether it is testimonial, evidentiary, or requires a credibility determination; any agreement of the parties; and waiver of any right to physical presence.
Hearings in civil cases are presumptively held by videoconference for:
Medical malpractice tribunals are presumptively held by videoconference.
Hearings in civil cases are presumptively held in person for:
A civil hearing designated as presumptively in person pursuant to this Standing Order may be held by videoconference in a judge’s discretion and for good cause.
A judge may order that a criminal or civil hearing designated as presumptively held by videoconference pursuant to this Standing Order be held in person if the judge determines that such a hearing is necessary for fair and efficient resolution of a matter.
A “hybrid” proceeding, where some participants appear in person and others appear by videoconference, may be held on request and in the discretion of the court, and consistent with constitutional, statutory, and other applicable rights. Any participant who requests to appear by videoconference at an in-person proceeding shall have no grounds to object to any other participant appearing in person.
For any videoconference hearing involving a self-represented litigant with limited access to, or limited facility with, videoconference technology, the court shall facilitate participation by videoconference or shall offer an alternative means of participation.
Information on public access to virtual proceedings shall be available from the Superior Court Clerks’ Offices.