skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 240002 Find in a Library
Title: Courts Are Conversations: An Argument for Increased Engagement by Court Leaders
Author(s): Garrett M. Graff
Date Published: October 2012
Page Count: 12
Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, DC 20531
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
National Ctr for State Courts
Williamsburg, VA 23185
State Justice Institute
Alexandria, VA 22314
Grant Number: 2007-DD-BX-K056
Sale Source: Harvard University
John F Kennedy School of Government
Program in Criminal Justice Policy Management
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Issue Overview; Legislation/Policy Analysis; Report (Grant Sponsored); Research (Theoretical)
Format: Document; Document (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper examines the implications for court proceedings of the proliferation of technologies that have expanded conversations across previously separate worlds and made massive amounts of information accessible in more ways to more people.
Abstract: As a new generation has emerged with different expectations for conversations and interactions, courts face a challenge, i.e., how to listen to a public that now converses in different ways, on different platforms, and with different tools. The courts must address this issue on two levels: tactical and strategic. At the tactical level, courts must communicate more effectively with the public through internet sites like Facebook and Twitter about its operations, where to report for jury duty, when courts are open for business, etc. Courts benefit from this by improving court operations and positive experiences for the public. On the other hand, courts must also suppress some social media access in daily court proceedings. Just as jurors have been forbidden from reading newspapers, they must now be forbidden from using modern tools of information and opinion access while serving as jurors. The courts, however, can benefit from tapping into the multitude of media channels for obtaining information and visual access in testimony for minor traffic cases, which would save both the courts’ and litigants’ time and cost. The exploration of new efficiencies for resolving some cases are warranted. On the strategic level, the issue is how court leaders can engage with the public at a more thoughtful level. Traditionally, one of the unique attributes of the judiciary is its non-participation in traditional forums of questions and answers that enlighten the public on how its leaders view their roles and make their decisions. 33 references
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): BJA Grant-related Documents; Communication techniques; Community relations; Court relations; Digital communications; Information dissemination
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.