Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T10:59:52.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judging at a Distance: The Effects of Remote Hearings during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2026

Rahul Hemrajani  and
Anthony W. Hobert
Rahul Hemrajani
Affiliation:
National Law School of India University
Anthony W. Hobert*
Affiliation:
Winthrop University, USA
*
Corresponding author: Anthony W. Hobert; Email: hoberta@winthrop.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

COVID-19 lockdown restrictions forced several courts to conduct remote video or telephone hearings of cases. Many argue for the continued use of these hearing formats based on claims of increased transparency and access to justice. Recent research, however, has highlighted that virtual hearings may lead to unfair proceedings, especially in trial courts. Furthermore, this research suggests that technology gaps—for example, the lack of computer literacy among litigants—may impact case outcomes. In this article, we test whether the introduction of virtual hearings due to COVID-19 affected the way in which traffic courts adjudicated traffic tickets in Arkansas. Using an original dataset of all court cases that occurred in three Pulaski County courthouses in 2020, we find that courts were less likely to dismiss charges where hearings took place through videoconferencing. Further, using a difference-in-differences design, we find that this bias is mitigated when the technology used for the hearing is equalized among litigants. We suggest reasons for this effect and offer some recommendations to mitigate the biases inherent in virtual environments. Our results invite more research into the impact of remote communication technology on judicial behavior to ensure that the long-term use of virtual hearings guarantees equitable justice to all litigants.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , First View , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

This article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the change has been published.

The authors have no acknowledgments, funding statements, or competing interests to disclose.

References

Atske, Sara, and Perrin, Andrew. 2021. “Home Broadband Adoption, Computer Ownership Vary by Race, Ethnicity in the U.S.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/16/home-broadband-adoption-computer-ownership-vary-by-race-ethnicity-in-the-u-s/.Google Scholar
Bandes, Susan A., and Feigenson, Neal. 2021. “Empathy and Remote Legal Proceedings.” Southwestern Law Review 51: 20–39.Google Scholar
Bellone, Eric T. 2013. “Private Attorney: Client Communications and the Effect of Videoconferencing in the Courtroom.” Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 8, no. 1: 25–48.Google Scholar
Benninger, Taylor, Colwell, Courtney, Mukamal, Debbie, and Plachinski, Leah. 2021. Virtual Justice? A National Study Analyzing the Transition to Remote Criminal Court. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School.Google Scholar
Blevins, Cameron, and Mullen, Lincoln. 2015. “Jane, John … Leslie? A Historical Method for Algorithmic Gender Prediction.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 9, no. 3: n.p. https://dhq-static.digitalhumanities.org/pdf/000223.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, Edward R., Deutsch, Steven K., Caballero, Cosme, and Blumberg, Robert E.. 2023. “Why Virtual Court Is a Threat to Our Justice System.” National Judicial College. https://www.judges.org/news-and-info/guest-editorial-why-virtual-court-is-an-actual-threat-to-our-justice-system/.Google Scholar
Bošković, Marina Matić. 2023. “Addressing Access to Justice for Elderly People.” In Elderly People and Discrimination: Prevention and Reaction, edited by Pavlović, Zoran, 149–61. Belgrade: Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research.Google Scholar
Chew, Pat K., and Kelley, Robert E.. 2012. “The Realism of Race in Judicial Decision Making: An Empirical Analysis of Plaintiffs’ Race and Judges’ Race.” Harvard Journal on Racial and Ethnic Justice 28: 91–115.Google Scholar
Costley, Drew. 2020. “Zoom’s Virtual Background Feature Isn’t Built for Black Faces.” OneZero. https://onezero.medium.com/zooms-virtual-background-feature-isn-t-built-for-black-faces-e0a97b591955.Google Scholar
Devine, Dennis J., and Caughlin, David E.. 2014. “Do They Matter? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Individual Characteristics and Guilt Judgments.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 20, no. 2: 109–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, Bowman, Locke E., Wong, Manyee, and Patton, Matthew M.. 2010. “Efficiency and Cost: The Impact of Videoconferenced Hearings on Bail Decisions.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 100, no. 3: 869–902.Google Scholar
Doerner, Jill K., and Demuth, Stephen. 2010. “The Independent and Joint Effects of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Age on Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts.” Justice Quarterly 27, no. 1: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolcini, M. Margaret, Canchola, Jesse A., Catania, Joseph A., Song Mayeda, Marissa M., Dietz, Erin L., Cotto-Negrón, Coral, and Naraya, Vasudhanan. 2021. “National-Level Disparities in Internet Access among Low-Income and Black and Hispanic Youth: Current Population Survey.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 23, no. 10: e27723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, Ingrid V. 2015. “Remote Adjudication in Immigration.” Northwestern University Law Review 109(4): 933–1020.Google Scholar
Epps, Willie J. Jr., and Hayter, Cailynn D.. 2021. “Zoomed in to Justice: Remote Proceedings during a Pandemic.” Judges Journal 60, no. 3: 10–14.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Knight, Jack. 2013. “Reconsidering Judicial Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrere, Sue. 2020. “Lessons to Be Learned from Remote Court Success during Coronavirus.” Safety + Justice Challenge. https://safetyandjusticechallenge.org/blog/lessons-to-be-learned-from-remote-court-success-during-coronavirus/.Google Scholar
Harker, Lisa, and Ryan, Mary. 2022. “Remote Hearings in Family Courts in England and Wales during COVID-19: Insights and Lessons.” Family Court Review 60, no. 2: 207–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, Heather M. 2023. “The Impact of Remote Hearing Policies on Racial Equity in Criminal Case Outcomes during the Pandemic.” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 9, no. 3: 252–79.Google Scholar
Hemrajani, Rahul, and Hobert, Tony Jr. 2024. “The Effects of Decision Fatigue on Judicial Behavior: A Study of Arkansas Traffic Court Outcomes.” Journal of Law and Courts 12, no. 2: 435–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, Pamela J. 1999. “The Cognitive and Interpersonal Costs of Video.” Media Psychology 1, no. 4: 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Janet B., Kennedy, Thomas D., and Gayle Shuman, I.. 1987. “Gender Differences in the Sentencing of Felony Offenders.” Federal Probation 51, no. 1: 49–55.Google Scholar
Justia . 2020. “Court Operations during COVID-19: 50-State Resources.” November 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20201101102112/https://www.justia.com/COVID-19/50-state-COVID-19-resources/court-operations-during-COVID-19-50-state-resources/.Google Scholar
Kemp, John Dan. 2020. “Supreme Court Announcement on Novel Coronavirus.” Arkansas Judiciary, March 13. https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/articles/COVID-19-update-march132020.docx.pdf.Google Scholar
Kool, Wouter, McGuire, Joseph T., Rosen, Zev B., and Botvinick, Matthew M.. 2010. “Decision Making and the Avoidance of Cognitive Demand.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 139, no. 4: 665–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krans, Bart, and Nylund, Anna, eds. 2021. Civil Courts Coping with COVID-19. The Hague: Eleven International.Google Scholar
Kulesza, Cezary. 2021. “Remote Trial and Remote Detention Hearing in Light of the ECHR Standard of the Rights of the Accused.” Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 26, no. 3: 205–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Yuruo, Spoer, Ben R., Lampe, Taylor M., Hsieh, Peiyang, Nelson, Isabel S., Vierse, Anne, Thorpe, Lorna E., and Gourevitch, Marc N.. 2023. “Racial/Ethnic and Income Disparities in Neighborhood-Level Broadband Access in 905 US Cities, 2017–2021.” Public Health 217: 205–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liptak, Adam. 2020. “Supreme Court Hears First Arguments via Phone.” New York Times, May 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/us/politics/supreme-court-coronavirus-call.html.Google Scholar
Macken, Leanne. 2023. “‘Same Crime, Same Sentence?’ Disparities in Laypersons Sanctioning Preferences for Male and Female Offenders, and the Link to Respondent Gender Bias.” Cogent Psychology 10, no. 1: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marbin, Jyothi, Hutchinson, Y-Vonne, and Schaeffer, Sarah. 2021. “Avoiding the Virtual Pitfall: Identifying and Mitigating Biases in Graduate Medical Education Videoconference Interviews.” Academic Medicine 96, no. 8: 1120–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matos, Marcela, McEwan, Kirsten, Kanovsky, Martin, Halamová, Júlia, Steindl, Stanley, Ferreira, Nuno, Linharelhos, Mariana et al. 2023. “Improvements in Compassion and Fears of Compassion throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multinational Study.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 1845–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mateos, Pablo. 2007. “A Review of Name-Based Ethnicity Classification Methods and Their Potential in Population Studies.” Population, Space and Place 13, no. 4: 243–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, Carolyn. 2018. The Pixelated Prisoner: Prison Video Links, Court “Appearance” and the Justice Matrix. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, Sabrina Shizu. 2022. “COVID-19 and Courts: How ‘Remote’ Should the Future Be?” In Legal Education and Legal Profession during and after COVID-19, edited by Raj Kumar, C. and Sreejith, S. G., 223–35. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mentovich, Avital, Prescott, J. J., and Rabinovich-Einy, Orna. 2020. “Are Litigation Outcome Disparities Inevitable? Courts, Technology, and the Future of Impartiality.” Alabama Law Review 73, no. 4: 893–979.Google Scholar
Muir, Bethany R., Newman, Eryn J., and Rossner, Meredith. 2025. “The Role of Video Background Cues in the Virtual Court: A Psychological Perspective.” Psychology, Crime & Law 31, no. 2: 207–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulcahy, Linda. 2010. Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ilene H., and Johnson, Barry L.. 1994. “The Role of Gender in a Structured Sentencing System: Equal Treatment, Policy Choices, and the Sentencing of Female Offenders under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85, no. 1: 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Center for State Courts. 2020. “Will Remote Hearings Improve Appearance Rates?” National Center for State Courts. https://www.ndcourts.gov/news/national/legal-issues/will-remote-hearings-improve-appearance-rates.Google Scholar
Nir, Esther, and Musial, Jennifer. 2022. “Zooming In: Courtrooms and Defendants’ Rights during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Social and Legal Studies 31, no. 5: 725–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowacki, Jeffrey S. 2019. “Gender Equality and Sentencing Outcomes: An Examination of State Courts.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 31, no. 5: 673–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nylund, Anna. 2021. “COVID-19 and Norwegian Civil Justice.” In Krans and Nylund, 139–46.Google Scholar
Orcutt, Holly K., Goodman, Gail S., Tobey, Ann E., Batterman-Faunce, Jennifer M., and Thomas, Sherry. 2001. “Detecting Deception in Children’s Testimony: Factfinders’ Abilities to Reach the Truth in Open Court and Closed-Circuit Trials.” Law and Human Behavior 25, no. 4: 339–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parks, Megan T., and Nowacki, Jeffery S.. 2020. “Race/Ethnicity, Sex, Age, and Fines: A Focal Concerns Approach.” Journal of Crime and Justice 44: 480–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peer, Eyal, and Gamliel, Eyal. 2013. “Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions.” Court Review 49, no. 2: 114–19.Google Scholar
Perez, Oren. 2016. “Judicial Strategies for Reviewing Conflicting Expert Evidence: Biases, Heuristics, and Higher-Order Evidence.” American Journal of Comparative Law 64, no. 1: 75–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulin, Anne Bowen. 2004. “Criminal Justice and Videoconferencing Technology: The Remote Defendant.” Tulane Law Review 78, no. 4: 1089–1168.Google Scholar
Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners. 2024. “Election Archive 2024.” https://votepulaskiar.gov/election-results/election-archive-2024/.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., Guthrie, Chris, and Wistrich, Andrew J.. 2007. “Heuristics and Biases in Bankruptcy Judges.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 163, no. 1: 167–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remote Courts Worldwide . 2024. “Commentary.” https://remotecourts.org/commentary.htm.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, S. Fernando, Curry, Theodore R., and Lee, Gang. 2006. “Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?” Social Science Quarterly 87, no. 2: 318–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossner, Meredith, Tait, David, McKimmie, Blake, and Sarre, Rick. 2017. “The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of Innocence.” Journal of Law and Society 44, no. 3: 317–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin. 2002. “Amendments to Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fr_import/CR2002-09.pdf.Google Scholar
Starr, Sonja B. 2015. “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases.” American Law and Economics Review 17, no. 1: 127–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensmeier, Darrell, Ulmer, Jeffery, and Kramer, John. 1998. “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male.” Sociology and Criminology 36, no. 4: 763–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of Arkansas. 2020. In Re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (per curiam). March 17. https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/articles/COVID-19-PC.pdf.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Arkansas. 2021. In re Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Return to the Regular Standards for Remote Court Participation and Reopening of the Justice Building (Per Curiam). June 10. https://www.arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_re_Response_to_COVID-19_-_Return_to_Regular_Standards.pdf.Google Scholar
Szafrańska, Weronika. 2022. “Limitation of the Principle of Openness in Polish Judicial-Administrative Proceedings during the Pandemic and the Standards of a Fair Hearing.” Studia Iuridica 91: 368–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Tim, Ramiller, Alex, Ren, Cheng, and Toomet, Ott. 2024. “Toward a National Eviction Data Collection Strategy Using Natural Language Processing.” Cityscape 26, no. 1: 241–60.Google Scholar
Thorley, Dane, and Mitts, Joshua. 2019. “Trial by Skype: A Causality-Oriented Replication Exploring the Use of Remote Video Adjudication in Immigration Removal Proceedings.” International Review of Law and Economics 59: 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townend, Judith, and Magrath, Paul. 2021. “Remote Trial and Error: How COVID-19 Changed Public Access to Court Proceedings.” Journal of Media Law 13, no. 2: 107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Jenia I. 2021. “Remote Criminal Justice.” Texas Tech Law Review 53: 197–271.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in Judgments Reveal Some Heuristics of Thinking under Uncertainty.” Science 185, no. 4157: 1124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Census Bureau, US. 2024a. “Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas Population Totals: 2020–2023.” https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-metro-and-micro-statistical-areas.html.Google Scholar
Census Bureau, US. 2024b. “City and Town Population Totals: 2020–2023.” https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-total-cities-and-towns.html.Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office, US. 2017. “Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Reduce Case Backlog and Address Long-Standing Management and Operational Challenges.” https://www.gao.gov/assets/d17438.pdf.Google Scholar
Walsh, Frank M., and Walsh, Edward M.. 2007. “Effective Processing or Assembly-Line Justice: The Use of Teleconferencing in Asylum Removal Hearings.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 22, no. 2: 259–84.Google Scholar
Wick, Allison. 2023. “Running the Risk of Violating Elderly Persons’ Due Process Rights by Limiting Court Access to Virtual and Hybrid Settings without Supplemental Assistance Programs.” Syracuse Journal of Science and Technology 38: 103–24.Google Scholar
Xie, Fangzhou. 2022. “Rethnicity: An R Package for Predicting Ethnicity from Names.” SoftwareX 17: 100965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, Shi, and Lao, Jiaqi. 2021. “Sex Disparities in Sentencing and Judges’ Beliefs: A Vignette Approach.” Victims & Offenders 17, no. 4: 597–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rybinska, Yuliia, Loshenko, Oleksandra, Kurapov, Anton, Ponochovna-Rysak, Taisiia, and Kholmakova, Yuliia. 2021. “The Change in the Concept of Virtue during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Amazonia Investiga 10, no. 47: 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Xingmei. 2021. “Remote Court Hearing as a Judicial Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Impact Assessment and Suggestions for Improvement.” Journal of Global Health 11, no. 03051: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorza, Richard. 2007. “Video Conferencing for Access to Justice: An Evaluation of the Montana Experiment.” Legal Services Corporation. https://web.archive.org/web/20201008145247/https://docplayer.net/3126017-Video-conferencing-for-access-to-justice-an-evaluation-of-the-montana-experiment-final-report.html#show_full_text.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hemrajani and Hobert supplementary material

Hemrajani and Hobert supplementary material
Download Hemrajani and Hobert supplementary material(File)
File 155.7 KB