Who is supposed to set up the audiovisual gear when a Mississippi justice court does an initial appearance by webcam, the judge or the county?

Plain-English summary

Coahoma County's justice court was conducting initial appearances of incarcerated defendants by closed-circuit television and webcam, as authorized by Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-23 and Rule 1.8 of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure. Judge Hopson asked the AG whether it would be improper for his private law office assistant to set up and operate the audiovisual equipment in the courtroom for those proceedings. He framed the question two ways: first, was it legal; second, was it ethical.

The AG split the question. On the legal piece, the AG said the county, not the judge, has the duty to furnish and operate the courtroom equipment. The Mississippi Supreme Court held in Board of Supervisors of Choctaw County v. Hughes, 35 So. 424 (Miss. 1903), that the board of supervisors is "the general representative of the county in all fiscal matters" and is duty-bound to furnish "everything needed for the courtroom." Modern Miss. Code Ann. § 19-7-23 codifies the same duty. Article 14 Section 261 of the Mississippi Constitution puts the cost of criminal prosecution on the county. Putting these together, when the court needs audiovisual equipment to comply with Mississippi Rule 1.8 and § 99-1-23, the county supplies and operates it.

On the ethical piece (would it be improper for the judge's private law office assistant to do the work), the AG declined to answer and referred that part of the question to the Mississippi Ethics Commission. On who actually operates the equipment, the opinion noted there is "no authority nor prohibition in the law" on that point.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi has long allowed audiovisual initial appearances. Section 99-1-23 authorizes the use of "interactive audiovisual equipment" for first appearances of incarcerated persons. Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 1.8 implements the practical procedure (judge in courtroom, defendant in jail or detention facility, two-way audio-video link, on-the-record colloquy). Neither the statute nor the rule specifies whose responsibility it is to set up or operate the equipment.

Three sources fill the gap, all pointing to the county:

1. Miss. Code Ann. § 19-7-23 is the modern codification of the board of supervisors' general duty to furnish the courthouse: "The board of supervisors shall provide for properly furnishing the courthouse and for supplying all county offices with necessary record books, stationery, seals, presses, iron safes, tables, chairs, furniture, and all other necessary articles ..."

2. Board of Supervisors of Choctaw County v. Hughes, 35 So. 424 (Miss. 1903) held that this duty is "primary" to the board and that the board is the "general representative of the county in all fiscal matters." The Supreme Court framed it expansively: the board must furnish "everything needed for the courtroom or for said offices." Audiovisual equipment is plainly "needed for the courtroom" once Rule 1.8 makes it a procedural option for initial appearances.

3. Mississippi Constitution Article 14 Section 261 places "the expenses of criminal prosecutions" on the county. Initial appearances are part of criminal prosecution. Equipment to conduct them is therefore a county expense.

Combining these sources, the AG concluded that it is the county, not the judge, that is responsible for providing all equipment necessary to meet the requirements of the court rules and Mississippi statutes, a responsibility the opinion said would include setting up and operating the audiovisual equipment and webcams.

The opinion's other piece, the referral to the Ethics Commission, follows from the way Mississippi divides AG and Ethics Commission jurisdiction. The AG stated that the Mississippi Ethics Commission should address the portion of the question pertaining to potentially unethical conduct, and declined to opine on it.

Common questions

Q: Who is allowed to operate the equipment in the courtroom?
A: On who operates it, the opinion said there is "no authority nor prohibition in the law" governing that point. What the AG settled was the county's responsibility to provide and, per the opinion's conclusion, set up and operate the equipment; the ethics of using the judge's private-office assistant was referred to the Ethics Commission.

Q: Does the opinion address recurring costs, like maintenance and repairs?
A: No. The opinion addressed the county's duty to furnish and provide the equipment for initial appearances. It did not separately discuss maintenance or recurring costs.

Q: Is the responsibility different between justice court and circuit court?
A: The opinion was about justice court. Its reasoning rested on § 19-7-23, the Hughes decision, and Article 14 Section 261, but the opinion itself did not extend the analysis to other courts.

Q: Did the AG decide the ethics question about the judge's private assistant?
A: No. The AG referred the potentially-unethical-conduct portion of the question to the Mississippi Ethics Commission and did not opine on it.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-23 (Initial appearances by interactive audiovisual equipment)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 19-7-23 (Board of Supervisors duty to furnish courthouse)

Constitution:

• Article 14, Section 261, Mississippi Constitution of 1890 (County bears prosecution expenses)

Court rules:

• Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 1.8 (Use of audiovisual equipment for initial appearances)

Cases:

• Board of Supervisors of Choctaw County v. Hughes, 35 So. 424 (Miss. 1903)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/D.HopsonSr._May-13-2020-Technical-Assistance-in-Coordinating-Interactive-Audiovisual-Equipment.pdf

Original opinion text

May 13, 2020

The Honorable Derek D. Hopson, Sr.
Coahoma County Justice Court Judge
601 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd., Suite A
Clarksdale, Mississippi 38615

Re: Technical Assistance in Coordinating Interactive Audiovisual Equipment

Dear Judge Hopson:

The Office of the Attorney General is in receipt of your request for the issuance of an official opinion.

Question Presented

Would it be illegal, unethical, or improper for the private law office assistant of the justice court judge to set up and operate audiovisual equipment necessary to conduct initial appearances in accordance with Miss. Code Ann. Section 99-1-23 and Rule 1.8 of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure?

Brief Response

It is the duty of the board of supervisors, as the general representative of the county in all fiscal matters, to furnish the courthouse and every county office therein with everything needed for the courtroom or offices. While it is the responsibility of the county to ensure the availability of the equipment in the courtroom, there is no authority nor prohibition in the law regarding who operates the equipment in the courtroom.

The Mississippi Ethics Commission should address that portion of your question pertaining to potentially unethical conduct.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Section 99-1-23 and Rule 1.8 of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure allow incarcerated persons to appear by closed-circuit television or web cam in certain instances. Neither the statute nor the rule speaks to whom is ultimately responsible for setting up or operating such equipment in the courtroom.

However, the Mississippi Supreme Court in Board of Supervisors of Choctaw County v. Hughes held that the Board of Supervisors has a primary duty to provide the supplies and equipment necessary for the operation of court. Specifically, the court stated:

The board of supervisors is the general representative of the county in all fiscal matters. This has been its character, and this is its function, time out of mind, under our system of government. Under section 296, supra, [now Section 19-7-23], it is made its duty primarily to furnish the courthouse and every county office therein with everything needed for the courtroom or for said offices. ...

35 So. 424, 426 (Miss. 1903)(Emphasis added).

Miss. Code Ann. Section 19-7-23 states in relevant part:

The board of supervisors shall provide for properly furnishing the courthouse and for supplying all county offices with necessary record books, stationery, seals, presses, iron safes, tables, chairs, furniture, and all other necessary articles ...

Furthermore, Article 14 Section 261 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 states:

The expenses of criminal prosecutions shall be borne by the county in which such prosecution shall be begun; and all fines and forfeitures shall be paid into the treasury of such county. Defendants, in cases of conviction, may be taxed with the costs.

Based upon the above and foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that it is the county, not the judge, which is responsible for providing all equipment necessary for the court to meet the requirements set forth by court rules and Mississippi statutes. This responsibility would include setting up and operating audio-visual equipment and/or webcams.

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Emiko Hemleben
Emiko Hemleben
Special Assistant Attorney General