2010 San Antonio Conference

Northeast Regional Meeting

In attendance were representatives from Washington, D.C., Virginia, New Hampshire, Maryland, Canada, Rhode Island and New York. Participants spent some time discussing and strategizing how to provide support for the 2012 Conference that will be in Boston. Suggestions included speakers from Harvard University, the History Trail and a visit to the Historic Courthouse. For the Annual Dinner, we will check into a Dinner Cruise. A possibility for a fun session would be a “Radical History” workshop. Currently, there are no active NASJE members from the host state. Members from nearby New Hampshire and Rhode Island are very willing to provide help and support and they will volunteer to be on the Education Committee. Meanwhile, we will also try to engage some judicial educators from Massachusetts.

Other news:

• New Hampshire will be hosting the COSCA New England Regional Conference in November.
• D.C. will be hosting the CCJ winter meeting in January.
• Judge Pirraglia shared some tales from the road of his corporate speaking engagements around the country – a whole different experience!
• Rhode Island has had some experiences with judges being targeted for their decisions on same sex marriage cases. On the same topic, D.C. just implemented a same sex marriage law with only minor protests.
• The National Judicial Education Project will be holding a pilot program in September for teams from several Northeast Region states. The Teams will be developing curriculum materials and teaching segments on handling sexual violence cases.
• The group discussed bogus ethics charges being made against judges that can ruin careers regardless of their veracity.
• International Judicial Branch Education work was also a topic of interest.

Southeast Regional Meeting

1. The group discussed sites for the 2013 NASJE Conference and voted to recommend the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay to the board.  The Grand Hyatt is offering a $134 room rate, free airport shuttle, free parking, and complimentary meeting space.
2. We also discussed our 2010 mid-year meeting and voted to attempt to do it again during the spring of 2011.  Alabama has again offered to host the meeting at no cost to us.
3. We had a round table discussion to highlight programs that we have done this year.  Two grant funded programs were discussed including a faculty development program done in Alabama by the National Judicial College.
4. Both NHTSA and SJI grant funding opportunities were discussed, Claudia Bayliff also informed us of money and resources that are available through her office for education programs on Sexual Abuse.
5. We discussed the usefulness of the Regional Newsletter and most voiced that they would like for it to continue.

Midwestern Regional Meeting

Anne Jordan – Midwest Regional Director

Everyone introduced themselves, including where they are from, and issues they want to explore at the meeting.  Texas was thanked for serving as the Midwest Regional Host for the event, and MariKay Bickett’s upcoming retirement acknowledged.  She was asked if she was willing to give her “Cornerstones for Justice” presentation in other states.

Texas:  Staff from Texas made the following reports:
-Working with Law Schools across the state to develop an Evidence Summit for judges on a regional basis.  A panel was comprised of the Dean and a Professor from the law school plus a Judge, who was required to have graduated from that law school. The 1.5 day program brought good PR to the law schools and gave them a better understanding of the importance of judicial branch education.
-Good experiences working with the Department of Transportation for judicial trainings.  DOT also has funded public school education, wherein judges go into the schools and teach about the law.
-Videos have been developed over the years used for training of limited jurisdiction judges (non-attorney positions).
-Judges and Social Media―a foundational piece is needed―judges are recognizing the importance of having a social media presence.  The problem is ethics. Judge Dickson from D.C. and a judge from Nebraska do a joint primer.  NACM has mini-guides.

NJC reported on the partnership with SJI―one on NITSA, another on Financial Statements in the Courtroom. These programs have been in Florida, Alabama, and Nebraska.

North Dakota reported that they are sharing judge-faculty with their neighboring states.

Nebraska reported that when the recession hit, they had to cancel five live programs.  In their place, they developed a Webinar series.  The first one was on retirement, which was very popular, drawing people not otherwise interested in distance learning.   They also did a cooperative agreement for course development with the University of Nebraska at Omaha for court staff.  Court staff can earn college credit for taking these courses.
Ohio reported that Joseph Sawyer of NJC is our liaison to the Association of Public Information Officers.  That organization is also working on the guidelines for use of social media:  what are the ethics that impact the use; what research found on the web can be used; and can social media be used in the classroom.

ND provides conference materials on a flash drive and on an intranet system.  Texas reported on steps taken towards their goal of “white space reduction.”  Over the past 3 years, they have transitioned from conference binders, to Power Point handouts, to a folder with a CD, to a flash drive, to all materials now are online one week prior to the first day of the conference. All agreed there are still barriers that exist as to use of electronic resources.

Kevin Bowling and Christy Tull reported on the annual NASJE meeting for 2011 in Red Rock, Nevada.  It will be combined with the annual NACM meeting.  NASJE will have their own track of education courses.

Western Region Meeting

Michael Roosevelt, Lisa Galdos, Diane Cowdrey, Claudia Fernandes, Gavin Lane, Todd Brower (CA), Evie Lancaster, Michael Bell, Wendy Schiller, William Brunson, Kelly Tait, Gordon Zimmerman (NV); Judith Anderson, Ileen Gertensberger, (WA); Paul Biderman, Pam Lambert (NM); Hon. Marsha Thomas, Kris Prince, Polly Schnaper, Rob Parks (UT); Jeff Schrade, Hon. Charlie Schudson (AZ); Hon. Karl Grube (FL).

The NASJE attendees from the Western Region enjoyed the chance to talk with their colleagues at the regional meeting. Attendees introduced themselves and provided a short description of what each person did in their various positions.

The Western Region’s past year’s accomplishments were reviewed; they included several conference calls and webinars. The first webinar offered highlighted the SJI with Jonathan Mattiello discussing the processes and procedures for courts seeking SJI funds andwhat SJI is looking for in projects. Two other webinars focused on innovative ways to use technology including inexpensive, free software and other software to enhance the delivery of education programs.

Discussion ensued regarding various funding partnerships including SJI funding to collaborate with other states in offering similar programs. Two such programs are the Institute for Court Management courses and law firms offering programs such as the “Holocaust.” It’s important to determine what program content would be of benefit for collaboration and then discuss delivery methods.

Regularly scheduled meetings via teleconference, videoconference, etc. will be held throughout 2010-2011 and are tentatively planned quarterly: October, January, April, June. Suggested topic ideas included follow-up on annual conference plenary sessions – such as Dr. Gary Marchant’s – especially in light of continued advancement and use of technology in our society, and how we can extend the discussion from our meetings such challenges, successes, and further needs as a result of the topics and ideas; and core values such as ethics.

Several attendees shared about new and innovative ideas and programs in respective states. The following list highlights many of those ideas and programs:

AZ –AOC has moved their satellite broadcast programming to web broadcast using Granicus.com. This has opened a new horizon on the number of people reached. External implications to other states may be to collaborate use of AOCs facilities for another state’s broadcast assistance.

CA – CJER is reconstructing the education committees and how to develop and determine what programs and products are going to be provided. The process will match content with appropriate delivery method. An AOC “brown bag” lunch session has been organized to share projects, specific programs, Q&A, etc. This provides further understanding of each division/staff responsibilities, fosters professional and interpersonal relationships and cohesiveness in collaboration efforts. Along this line, The Williams Institute (Todd Brower) offers a lunch time program for courts on sexual orientation topics such as Gay/Lesbian youth or questioning youth. The lunch time program offers the opportunity for “court specific” topics.

NV – The NCJFCJ has funding available to deliver education programs, such as domestic violence. NCJFCJ’s partnership provides development of course content, materials and faculty and is funded by NCJFCJ. The partner state is responsible for event management, e.g. registration and all other costs related to the course, e.g. travel per diem. Dr. Gordon Zimmerman shared the increase of “retreats” being held by committees or groups of judges. They are a low cost idea and an old technique to revitalize and build rapport. The AOC held a pilot “brown bag” videoconference for court executives with budget and staffing as the topics.

NM – Some prior online training is being adapted for use on a national level. The training is asynchronous and the state develops the course context.

UT – The Utah Judicial Institute (Rob Parks) has transitioned education program modules to flash drives. The Justice Court Judges Education Committee (Hon. Marsha Thomas, Chair) has partnered with the state law library to provide videotaped judicial education programs to justice court judges on a loaner basis. The videotape is edited to make it as user friendly as possible however time constraints are an issue.

WA – The Judicial College on-site training program now has use of laptops connected to the court network, allowing for ease of course materials use and following along with the instructor. While participants in larger groups must provide their own laptop, they too have the benefit of the network.

Hon. Karl Grube, NHTSA representative, provided an update on NHTSAs outreach and discussed training funding availability.

The possibility of holding an in-person Western Regional conference was briefly discussed: The general consensus was to hold a conference, possibly in February 2011. A planning committee will be organized at a later date. Also, a survey would be distributed for further data gathering, such as location, date, and topic and faculty ideas.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: The next Western Regional webinar will be held October 22 from 10:00 – 11:30 a.m. PT. Dr. Gary Marchant will present Emerging Technologies and the Future of Law: Application to Judicial Education. Dr. Marchant will revisit his 2010 Annual Conference presentation and extend the discussion to how judicial educators might effectively incorporate the topic of emerging technologies into education programs for judges, attorneys and court staff.

Forum of State Directors

by Lee Ann Barnhardt

A new feature of the NASJE Annual Conference this year was a Forum for State Directors of Judicial Branch Education Offices. The forum, facilitated by Jill Goski of Minnesota, attracted participants from about 12 states.

Since NASJE was founded by a handful of state directors of judicial branch education offices, the goal of this informal session was to reserve time at the conference for the unique job of state education administrators in this challenging economic time for the courts. Objectives were to exchange resources and wisdom, identify trends and problem solve, and begin and renew relationships among the state directors.

Directors were asked to introduce themselves and suggest a topic for discussion. As expected, there was much general discussion about budget cuts and identifying resources. More specifically, the session focused on the areas of technology, partnering, and managing staff.

The participants agreed that the session was beneficial to their work as directors and would like to see it continue as a regular conference feature.

Breaking Barriers: Concrete Tools for Working with People in Poverty
by Michael Roosevelt

“Poverty rose among all races and ethnic groups, but stood at higher levels for blacks and Hispanics. The number of Hispanics in poverty increased from 23.2 percent to 25.3 percent; for blacks it increased from 24.7 percent to 25.8 percent. The number of whites in poverty rose from 8.6 percent to 9.4 percent.” (National Public Radio, 2010)

The reality of the growing wealth gap and persistent poverty is both the personal story of Dr. Donna Beegle and the research she shared during her Annual Conference workshop in Breaking Barriers: Concrete Tools for Working with People in Poverty. Dr. Beegle knows what she is talking about, having grown up in poverty and completing her GED at age 26. Her having lived in and studied poverty makes her strategies for how the justice system can improve the way it works with people in poverty all the more compelling.

To improve communication between the justice system and poor people, she recommends that information coming from the court be provided orally and face-to-face to people living in poverty. Interpersonally, court professionals must demonstrate the belief that people in poverty have potential. Moreover, she encourages judges and court personnel to learn more about poverty.

Although the speaker did not make the suggestion, it might be a good idea to include the topic of poverty at a future Annual Conference. What do you think?

Building Online Courses: Working with a Course Management System
by Wendy Schiller, NCJFCJ

This two-part session was a condensed version of a program given at the National Judicial College. Faculty members, Joseph Sawyer, William Brunson, and Kelly Tait expertly led participants through a course management system. Participants received a hands-on tutorial working with WebCampus, a course management software program, as Mr. Sawyer directed the class to build an online course.

This was a very practical session. Computers were set up, and each participant was able to log on to WebCampus at the University of Nevada, Reno and actually began building the online course from start to finish. The participants were able to garner quite a lot of information from the synthesized format, as the sessions were laced with tips and software suggestions. This valuable information and application will help participants in the future as they build online courses for their organizations.

Currently looking for software? The following is a short list recommended by the faculty during the sessions:

• WebCT
• Moogle
• Adobe Connect Pro
• WebEX

Currently building an online course? The following is a list of tips to keep in mind:

• Choose Arial as the font in dark blue or black which will be easier for participants to read.
• Make icons for the course in PhotoShop, so the visuals on the page will be more pleasing to the eye.
• Multiple choice questions work better with four to five answers per question.
• Keep the learners together as they progress through the modules of the course by using selective release of materials and quizzes.
• Keep in mind that what people see should be as simple as possible.
• Engage the learners by building in interaction with other learners and/or the faculty.
• Give tutorials so the learners will know how to use the system.
• Storyboard your course before you begin to build it online.

Learning from THE VISITOR: “Connection Is Everything”
by Kelly Tait

The movie The Visitor illuminates issues both personal and societal relating to undocumented immigrants in particular and the interweaving of cultures in general.  The film was screened one evening at NASJE’s 2010 Annual Conference in San Antonio.  On a following morning there was a facilitated discussion that included how to use the film as a training tool in judicial branch education and the basics that state court judges need to know regarding immigration issues.

Richard Jenkins was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar in 2009 for his performance as Professor Walter Vale, a disconnected man who has been sleepwalking through his life since his wife passed away.  When Walter visits his seldom-used New York City apartment, he encounters Tarek, a Syrian musician and Zainab, Tarek’s Senegalese girlfriend, living there.

Walter comes face to face with the physical reality of strangers in his home, with his own assumptions about people who are different from him, and with what happens when you broaden your worldview.  Just as Walter progresses into combining the old rhythms of his life with the new, Tarek is detained and threatened with deportation for being undocumented.  Walter’s perspective of the system changes dramatically when someone he cares about is entangled in it.

The movie provided a great jumping-off point for discussing immigration issues in judicial education.  The facilitators were Joseph Sawyer (Distance Learning and Technology Manager for the National Judicial College), Kelly Tait (judicial branch communication consultant), and Judge Jack Weil (Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for the U.S. Department of Justice).

The first part of the facilitated discussion focused on the story and the characters, and on how this film and others might be used in judicial branch education sessions.  Issues included teaching with the full film vs. clips, how to keep the characters clear, dealing with potential inaccuracies in portrayals of the justice system, and having a backup plan for any technological difficulties.  Clips from The Visitor were shown throughout the discussion both to retain the emotional immediacy of the movie and for the benefit of those who hadn’t seen it.

Judge Jack Weil brought to the discussion the unique perspective of someone who’s been an immigration judge for 15 years as well as who now has the primary responsibility for training all of the U.S. immigration judges and court staff.  He provided excellent resources including topics to include in a curriculum on immigration consequences for state court judges.  Among these were potential immigration consequences of a State Court action, state-specific obligations to give advisals of immigration consequences, immigration terms that needed to be clearly defined (such as “alien,” “crime involving moral turpitude,” and “relief’ from removal), and many others. Judge Weil supported the use of films like The Visitor for encouraging dialogue on immigration issues.

The Visitor was written and directed by Thomas McCarthy, who also wrote and directed The Station Agent.  Music–drumming especially–infused the film with a compelling heartbeat that reflected both cultural differences and universal human rhythms.

The Same Sex Rights Debate and Judicial Ethics
by Michael Roosevelt

This course was divided into two-parts. The first part was an overview of same-sex relationships across the United States; the second part explored ethical issues facing judges handling same-sex dissolution and divorce cases.

In the first part of the course, Todd Brower, Director of Judicial Education, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, offered a snapshot of states that recognize or do not recognize same sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships, where gay and lesbian families live and their average family size. Facts about same sex couples were also provided with implications for developing future judicial education programs. For example, he reported that Utah, Mississippi, and South Carolina are among the top ten states in the proportion of same-sex couples who are raising families. Surprisingly, California is not among the top ten states.

The second part of the course, structured as a debate between Judges Robert Pirraglia and Karl B. Grube (Ret), tackled some of the ethical issues and questions judges confront in same-sex marriage or domestic partner cases. Since few states recognize same-sex marriage or domestic partnership, courts are in a conundrum –what to do in a case where a married same sex couple wants to petition for divorce in a state where same-sex marriage is not recognized? In such a case, can the judge legally refuse to hear a case based on non-recognition of same sex marriage? In that same scenario, can the judge, a member of the Roman Catholic Church ethically remove him/herself from hearing the case based on religious grounds? While both judges answered these questions differently, they agreed that the judicial code of ethics may provide some guidance when such questions arise.

In conclusion, the current state-by-state approach to the recognition of same sex relationships only makes handling such cases confusing. However, there is an opportunity for state judicial educators to develop programs to educate the bench and court employees about the topic of same sex relationships, whether or not there is state recognition.

Social Media Roundtable Discussion
by Jim Drennan

• Should judges Twitter during a trial?
• Should judges send Facebook messages to “friends” who are in trial with them?
• Do jurors use social media?
• Should judicial educators provide programs on social media use?

In the lively “Social Media” roundtable discussion in San Antonio, a group of about 20 judicial educators answered “No”, “No”, “Yes” and “Yes” to the above questions.  While the judges in the discussion suggested that many of their colleagues do not use social media, all agreed that to be effective in controlling a trial, judges need to know about them, and that judicial education is the best way to inform judges and court personnel about how to do that.

At its most fundamental level, social media are simply a means to an end; the end of courts remains to do justice in an open, transparent, and fair manner. But as was true with the advent of the printing press, radio, television, computers, and the Internet, the way courts do that is constantly changing. This discussion emphasized the need for judicial education to stay current and relevant. Educators shared strategies for doing that and discussed the different needs judges have from others who work in the courts.
Finally, the group noted that social media can play an important role in improving public knowledge of and confidence in the courts, and left with a renewed interest in addressing that issue in their local and national education programs.

You should have been there.   It was fun and informative.

Jim Drennan is director of the North Carolina Judicial College at the UNC School of Government.  He teaches and advises on court administration issues, judicial ethics and fairness, criminal sentencing, and judicial leadership as well as being responsible for the School’s educational programs for clerks of superior court and court administrators.

Law and Literature Review

A diverse and eager group of judges and educators met with Texas Judge Stephen B. Ables for a discussion of the short story “A Wasted Day” by Richard Harding Davis.  The story describes a day in the life of wealthy Wall Street banker Arnold Thorndike and his first real-life exposure to the criminal Justice system.  The story prompted meaningful discussion about the public perception of the criminal justice system.  Judge Ables said, “The test of a good law and literature session is ‘did all the participants get involved.’ ” Based on that standard, the session gets an A-plus.  In keeping with the theme of the short story, it was not a wasted day.”

Curriculum Development: What is it? Why do it? And, how is it done?
by Wendy Schiller, NCJFCJ

Karen Thorson engaged a large number of conference participants during this valuable session, given on the last day of the conference. The session was based on the work of the NASJE Curriculum Development Committee and provided judicial educators with some new definitions and perspectives.

The bottom line:

What is a curriculum?

• An overarching plan of education for a target audience

Why develop an overarching plan of education for each target audience?

• Provides a full spectrum of content for each and every learner
• Ensures some level of content consistency with various faculty over time
• Takes the next evolutionary step in judicial branch education

After a general overview, faculty focused on the last question in the session title—“how is it (curriculum development) done?” and described the difference between curriculum-based planning (i.e., course planning based on a curriculum; content will be repeated by different faculty over time.) and event-based planning (i.e., course planning based on a current need or due to accessibility of a particular faculty member; content generally is offered one-time only).

Ms. Thorson discussed three curriculum models and offered development steps for each. Each model has benefits and drawbacks that judicial branch educators should consider:

Model	Benefits	Drawbacks	When to Use
List of Topics	Short, efficient, room for innovation, limited maintenance, easily accepted	Vague, reduced importance/attention, room for variance, no faculty resources	When you need to be sure certain broad areas of content are delivered
Outlines, Guides, Templates	Content consistency, manageable review, degree of faculty ownership, provides faculty with resources	Potential for change in course content over time, moderate development time, potential expense	When you need to be sure certain content is delivered with a degree of consistency
Series of Complete Course Designs	Complete course consistency, full faculty resources, limits faculty time, high-level importance	Limited faculty ownership, no adaptation, significant development time, potential expense	When you need to be sure certain content is delivered in a specific way

Session materials are helpful in guiding judicial branch educators through considerations and decisions that need to be made before embarking on curriculum development.

Welcoming Address
by Lee Ann Barnhardt

Pioneering Trends in Judicial Education was the theme of the 35^th Annual NASJE Conference held August 8-11, 2010 in San Antonio, Texas. Elizabeth Evans, chair of the NASJE Education Committee, said judicial branch educators have an obligation to be aware of cutting edge issues and to consider what’s ahead. The conference was designed to help prepare NASJE members to address these issues.

To get the conversation started, the Honorable Wallace Jefferson, Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court and President of the Conference of Chief Justices, welcomed NASJE members to Texas saying it was a great honor to address those entrusted with the important work of educating judges and court staff.

“Courts need judges that possess skills in leadership, administration, law and ethics, and competent staff who are highly knowledgeable,” said Jefferson. “Courts are facing tough times economically and politically and it is even more important that judges and staff acquire new skills for a complex world.”

Jefferson said judicial branch education should be funded as a core function essential for the judicial system to perform. He said continuing education is needed because the court system can become insulated and out of touch with trends and innovations in technology. He stressed the need for judges to understand the law and to understand innovation.

“Judges ought to be in classes receiving education,” he said. “The more education a judge gets, the better is the administration of justice. The public needs to feel assured that those deciding cases are trained and that we are serious about education.”

Jefferson said the importance of continuing education and public confidence in the judiciary was reinforced for him during the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said the process focused on the rule of law, the Constitution, and the proper relationship between the branches of government.

“We need more of that in order to dispense justice fairly and intelligently for all citizens,” he said.

Opening Plenary: Emerging Technologies and the Future of Law
by Lee Ann Barnhardt

The opening plenary session, Emerging Technologies and the Future of Law, provided an overview of how a series of technological revolutions including genomics, nanotechnology, neuroscience, virtual reality, surveillance technologies, and enhancement technologies will fundamentally change our lives over the next decade, as well as the practice of law. Moreover, this session described pending technological revolutions and provided examples of cases where these technologies are already entering the courtroom.

The session was presented by Gary E. Marchant, PhD JD, Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law and Ethics at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and Executive Director, Center for Law, Science & Innovation and Professor, School of Life Sciences, both at Arizona State University.

Marchant begin by explaining how four technologies—the car, television, flight, and computers, which entered society over a period of 100 years— had implications on daily lives and the law. He said the technology revolution of the 21^st century, including biotechnology and genetics, nanotechnology, communications technology and neurobiology, will have exponentially incredible effects on society and are just beginning to emerge as issues for the legal system.

“The legal system is at the front lines,” he said. “Someone has to make decisions on how technology can be used. Everything is in play.”

Marchant explained that there will be exponential growth in technology, citing the following from Ray Kurzweil: “An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense ‘intuitive linear’ view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21^st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).”

His presentation was built around five technologies – nanotechnology, genetics, surveillance technologies, brain scanning, and virtual worlds.

Nanotechnology is the study, manipulation, and design of materials and technologies at the molecular scale. Marchant said there are over 1,000 nano products already on the market including stain resistant pants, odor-free socks and self-cleaning glass. One area of legal concern is the use of this technology in drug delivery devices. Marchant said this technology is not regulated and there are concerns about litigation around liability. He said several major law firms have established nanotech practice groups.

The following were listed as legal issues related to nanotechology:

• Health and safety regulation
• Environmental protection
• Intellectual property
• Liability issues
• Privacy
• Ethical and social issues

“Government is way too slow to react to these concerns,” said Marchant. “The courts will end up deciding, not the government.”

The genetics discussion centered primarily around the issue of genetic testing and how that will impact health care, physician liability, insurance, and criminal investigations. Areas discussed included personalized medicine, natural born killers, designer children, intelligence genes, and gene doping.

“There are legal and ethical issues related to genetics that are currently below the radar,” said Marchant.

Surveillance technologies include cameras, GPS systems, black boxes in cars, computer monitoring, and biometrics. He explained that location-based services available on most phones can and are being used for tracking people—employers tracking employees, parents tracking children, suspicious spouses tracking partners, and police tracking suspected criminals. Questions arising from such uses are what constitutes a search and does law enforcement need a warrant?

Other uses are road pricing (fees charged per miles you drive), insurance rating, speed limit enforcement, traffic monitoring, and GPS enabled firearms. There are also privacy concerns regarding information collected by GPS providers.

“Legal protection for privacy is a concern,” said Marchant.”Once the public’s expectation of privacy goes down, the protection tends to lessen. There are no polices in the United States. Companies are making decisions on their own.”

Brain scanning, which basically lets someone look into your brain and see what you are thinking, has several current applications. It is used for lie detection, crime scene recognition, drug and alcohol use, mental health vulnerabilities, and intelligence. Marchant said these uses pose evidentiary questions about the admissibility of this information in trial.

Marchant said some potential courtroom applications of brain scanning are as follows:

• Voluntary or compelled testimony of criminal defendants
• Introduction of brain scans to support veracity of testimony
• Scanning jurors for statements on objectivity and bias
• Issues of 4^th amendment search protection and 5^th amendment right against self-incrimination

The final topic area was law in virtual worlds. Marchant said there are on-line worlds such as Second Life, that people “live” in with real money, real crime, and real legal agreements. He said virtual worlds have become an obsession.

“There are lawyers now practicing at least part time in Second Life. There is a Second Life bar association and several dozen cases pending in the U.S. courts arising from activities within virtual worlds,” said Marchant.

Marchant said when crime occurs in a virtual world (such as fraud) or a virtual marriage ends, there are many legal questions to be answered. Where does the activity occur? Who has jurisdiction? Whose law do you carry out?

Legal and social questions Marchant raised about virtual worlds included

• What will be the social, economic, political, and legal impacts of people spending more and more time in virtual reality?
• Can enforceable rights (contractual, marital) be created in a virtual reality?
• Should earnings in a virtual world be taxable?
• Who has jurisdiction over second life disputes?
• Is there unauthorized practice of law in virtual worlds?

Marchant said for almost all of these emerging technologies, Congress and regulatory agencies have been silent. He believes it will be courts that are forced to address them.

Editor’s note: A follow up to this presentation was presented on October 22^nd by the Western Region and the NASJE Website and Technology Committee. It was very well attended.

Radical Resiliency: Life Lessons from Steve Welker
by Kelly Tait

Steve Welker was the inspirational closing plenary speaker at NASJE’s Annual Conference in San Antonio, Texas, on August 11, 2010.  Using his own circumstances as an example, Steve addressed change as a fact of life.  Steve’s life changed radically when he was severely injured in a car accident en route to the birth of his twins.  He permanently lost his sight in the accident, but he didn’t let it stop him from continuing his career and starting his own companies.  He now devotes a significant amount of his time to public service.

In researching how to adapt to such sudden and severe change, Steve’s wife, Kristina Welker, was inspired to get her PhD in Psychology, and Steve was inspired to make the most of his circumstances and learn from the experience.  Resiliency was the attribute that showed up time and again in the research, and Steve is now a motivational speaker and resiliency trainer as well as the author of  The World at My Fingertips.

Drawing on the research, Steve named the three primary character traits that add up to radical resiliency in the “Resiliency Triangle.”  They are

1. Having a positive attitude
2. Committing to accomplishing goals
3. Having strong support systems

He explored these traits and provided examples for each from his life, from the lives of others who have been faced with extraordinary challenges, and from movies.  For instance, for the second trait, he discussed the GROW model for goal setting (by John Whitmore):

G–Goal: Very specifically, what do you want to accomplish?
R–Realistic/Reality: Is your goal realistic?  Can it be achieved?  Where are you right now?
O–Options: What are the options for accomplishing the goal? Design a plan.  Write it down.
W—What’s next? What is your plan for action? Prioritize the steps. Get an accountability partner.

Steve also used humor throughout his presentation.  In a nice bit of active learning, he taught the audience how to read Braille, commenting that “It’s a lot easier to learn Braille when you can see.”  He had us read taglines from three movies—in Braille—and then showed the corresponding film clips, aligning them with each of the three primary character traits of resiliency.  For instance, for the second trait (committing to accomplishing goals), we read “Build it and he will come” in Braille and then saw a clip from Field of Dreams.

Steve said about one third of people naturally maintain resiliency skills to overcome a major challenge.  The rest of us need to work on them, but it is possible to improve them with attention put to the three legs of the resiliency triangle.  As he says, “You don’t have to be a superhero to overcome a major challenge.”