Allen County Court uses technology to reach jurors

May 29, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Quick Response Codes, or QR Codes, allow smartphone users to research products, get coupons and visit websites by scanning a little black and white box-shaped barcode.  Allen Superior Court is now using this technology to reach out to jurors.

You may have seen this technology in a magazine or on an ad in the mall. The Journal Gazette reports that the court will be testing the use of QR codes for potential jurors. People can scan the QR code received from the court, which will direct them to the court’s website and jury questionnaire.

QR codes have been around for years, but with more and more people purchasing smartphones, their popularity is increasing. According to mobile barcode solution provider ScanLife, scans of QR codes by consumers increased nearly 160 percent in the first quarter of 2012 as compared to the first quarter of 2011. All you need is an app to scan the barcodes.

Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull told the newspaper that the county is the first court to use this technology and that the court has been on the leading edge of jury innovation.

The court also has implemented the “mjuror” program that enables summoned jurors to text or email a 6-digit juror number and 5-digit signature from their smartphones and then ask questions and receive information on parking, security and maps.
 
Check out the Indiana Courttimes article about the technology.

QR codes can also benefit law firms in their marketing, according to several legal blogs. These codes can be placed on marketing materials or business cards that link users to attorney bios, press releases, and articles or blogs written by firm attorneys.

Or these codes may be on their death bed, if you believe other marketing blogs. While all you need to do is download an app to scan the codes, some people (like myself) have never gone to the trouble to do so. Another reason cited for the decline in use is the location of the codes. If you place a code on an ad in a subway station, you need Wi-Fi to connect or it defeats its purpose. There are also security concerns that someone could manipulate a scan into unauthorized payments or fake permissions.

What do you think about Allen Superior Court’s use of technology to reach out to jurors? And on a related note, does your firm or office utilize QR codes in marketing efforts?  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT