Videoconferencing in Removal Hearings: A Case Study of the ...

Technical Problems at the Detention Facility
Given ICE’s refusal to allow us to interview detained immigrants or observe
Master Calendar hearings at Broadview, it was much more difficult to assess the
adequacy of the Broadview equipment. Only one attorney interviewed said that he had
ever gone to Broadview and represented a client
there. This attorney said that he could only
understand about 80% of what the judge and trial
attorney said, although nobody in the court in
Chicago seemed to perceive any communication
38
Only one attorney interviewed said that he
had ever gone to Broadview and
represented a client there. This attorney
said that he could only understand about
80% of what the judge and trial attorney
said, although nobody in the court in
Chicago seemed to perceive any
communication difficulties.
difficulties. Observers in the courtroom did not see judges making clear efforts to ensure
that the immigrant could adequately hear what was happening in court. Often the judge
seemed to assume that asking the immigrant his or her name and getting an audible
response was a sufficient test of the sound equipment.
Access to Counsel
We found that videoconferencing creates a major barrier to a detained
immigrant’s access to counsel. In theory, there are two potential types of access to
counsel problems: (a) not being able to obtain counsel at all, and (b) having trouble
making contact with an attorney who has agreed to represent the immigrant.
Videoconferencing did not appear to have an adverse impact on the first type of access
problem: almost all unrepresented immigrants received a list of free legal services
providers and were given additional time to find an attorney if they requested it.
However, videoconferencing did undermine the ability of immigrants to confer with their