Workmen will soon replace attorneys and judges in Madison County's courtrooms as five civil and two felony courtrooms get technical upgrades that officials say will improve case presentations.
The Edwardsville courthouse's upgrades will tentatively begin Sept. 14, said Teri Picchioli, the trial court administrator, assuming all of the new equipment arrives in time.
Contractor Schiller's Camera and Video of St. Louis has estimated that work could take about a week per courtroom due to the age of the courthouse.
Technical upgrades will include drop down screens, hanging digital projectors and on-table consoles that will allow exhibits to be placed on them and shown on the large screen.
The work will cost about $262,000. The funds come from the Law Library Fund, a fund whose monies must be used for court or library improvements.
"It's going to help attorneys as well as pro se litigants with their presentations," Picchioli said.
According to Picchioli, Chief Judge Ann Callis formed a committee last summer to examine ways to improve courtroom technology.
The committee toured other courts including the federal court at East St. Louis to determine what kind of upgrades would best suit Madison County.
The project then went to bid.
- Alleged misdiagnosis, leg amputation leads to negligence suit against medical center
- Parents blame driver for injuries daughter suffered in accident
- Five auto passengers seek damages from motorist who allegedly drove into their vehicle
- Wigginton plans to step down next month, will move into private practice in St. Louis
- Couple blames motorist for causing head-on vehicle collision
- Motorist blames another driver for chain-reaction accident
- Majority of Illinois Independents in favor of government spending cuts, poll says
- Next round begins in lawyers' battle for billions; Tillery team seeks to restore Price, disqualify Karmeier
- General Motors says ignition switch lawsuits are misjoined; seeks to transfer to Cook County
- IDC supports Prairie Farms in seeking to reverse revived '06 case; argument centers on plaintiffs' failure to meet deadlines