Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Appearances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public Defender Office Seeks Default Permission for Certain Remote Appearances; Magistrates Resist
Summary
House Bill 116 would allow public defenders to appear remotely for routine, non‑substantive court hearings by default unless a judge orders in‑person appearance. OPD said the change reduces travel burdens in under‑resourced areas; the Montana Magistrates Association opposed, citing defendants' access to private counsel and technology concerns.
Representative Valerie More introduced House Bill 116, an Office of the Public Defender (OPD)‑sponsored bill that would encourage courts to permit remote appearances for routine scheduling and administrative hearings (for example, initial appearances, bond/bail, status hearings and calendar calls) where technology allows. The measure would not mandate remote proceedings in courts that lack technological capacity and would exclude hearings that determine outcomes.
Shandelson, Director of the Office of State Public Defender, said HB116 would save travel time and money—OPD logged roughly 16,000 travel hours last year—and make the public defender workforce more effective in sparsely populated service regions. He described several "OPD deserts" (regions served remotely from Billings or Great Falls) and said the bill flips the default from requiring paperwork and motion practice to allow remote appearances for a narrow set of hearings unless a judge requires an in‑person appearance.
The Montana Magistrates Association (Rebecca Myers) opposed the bill, raising concerns the bill would prevent defendants from meeting privately with counsel at initial appearances, that many hearings are substantive in practice, and that technology and platform reliability vary across jurisdictions. Magistrates warned the change could increase backlog and leave defendants without effective counsel in jail settings.
Committee members asked whether practice standards and safeguards could be developed to ensure remote practice preserves client confidentiality and advocacy quality. OPD said it is adopting a remote practice standard and agreed that contested hearings and trials should remain in person; it urged an approach that reduces administrative burden while preserving defendants’ rights. The committee did not adopt a final position and deferred further work.
What happens next: Committee members requested further work on practice standards, potential carve‑outs for initial appearances, and technical language to preserve defendants’ rights and court discretion.
