Early in the morning of March 5, 2025…

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has released a comprehensive report outlining critical inefficiencies in how courts manage digital evidence and track case progress. The findings reinforce what many in the justice system already know: courts lack the infrastructure to handle digital case materials effectively, and existing performance tracking is insufficient to ensure timely resolutions.

The report, which stems from a nationwide collaborative effort, highlights two major gaps in court operations:

1. The absence of centralized digital evidence platforms with clear retention and destruction policies.

2. A lack of standardized data tracking and performance metrics to enforce time standards for case resolution.

A Fragmented Approach to Digital Evidence

Courts continue to rely on outdated, ad-hoc methods to manage digital evidence, including physical media submissions, email attachments, and platforms like SharePoint. These methods create a host of inefficiencies and security risks.

Courts that have implemented centralized digital evidence platforms have seen significant improvements:

However, without a consistent national standard, courts vary widely in their approach to digital evidence. Some jurisdictions still require physical copies of exhibits, while others allow digital uploads but have no established guidelines for retention or deletion. This leads to unnecessary data accumulation and operational bottlenecks.

To address these concerns, the report calls for:

• Case-type-specific retention schedules to ensure digital and physical exhibits follow the same policies. (p. 54)

• Automation of exhibit lifecycle management to track retention and prompt destruction notices, reducing administrative burden. (p. 55)

• Clear submission guidelines to prevent unnecessary data storage. (p. 54)

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters

Courts are already overwhelmed with backlogged cases. Inefficient digital evidence management only worsens delays, increasing costs and further eroding public confidence in the judicial system. Digital exhibits should be easy to submit, review, and track—not a logistical nightmare. Without reform, courts risk becoming digital warehouses rather than functional venues for justice.

Data Tracking & Performance Metrics: A Major Weakness in Court Management

Beyond digital evidence, the report underscores a broader issue: courts lack automated tracking for case milestones, continuances, and time-to-resolution metrics. Many jurisdictions still rely on manual tracking via spreadsheets and paper reports, leading to inconsistent data and an inability to enforce time standards.

One of the most significant drivers of case delays? Continuances. Research confirms that continuances are the leading cause of backlog issues:

The report outlines key strategies to combat these inefficiencies:

• Enforcing scheduling orders with clear deadlines for hearings, motions, and exhibits. (p. 12)

• Requiring courts to track continuance data to identify patterns and address recurring delays. (p. 31)

• Encouraging courts to adopt dashboards and real-time reporting tools to track case progress. (p. 16)

Too Much Tech? Courts Face a Growing Problem

While modern solutions can help, courts are also facing another crisis: technology bloat.

Most court systems already operate across multiple platforms—one for case management, another for evidence handling, another for scheduling, another for video conferencing, and so on. Each new system adds complexity, requiring IT teams to support an ever-expanding stack of applications that don’t always communicate well with each other.

The result? Instead of streamlining processes, courts are drowning in a sea of disconnected platforms. Judges, clerks, attorneys, and IT staff must navigate multiple logins, redundant data entry, and workarounds just to perform routine tasks.

A Unified Approach: Bridging Evidence Management to Caseflow

At Liberty, we’ve seen these inefficiencies firsthand in police interview rooms, evidence handling, and courtroom technology. The disconnect between early-stage evidence collection and court case management is a significant barrier to efficiency.

We believe courts need a single, integrated platform that bridges:
✅ Evidence handling – from police intake to courtroom presentation.
✅ Case management – with automated scheduling and retention tracking.
✅ Virtual hearings – hosting and streaming directly within the platform.

By centralizing all these functions, courts can eliminate redundant software, improve efficiency, and reduce IT strain—without sacrificing security or compliance.

What’s Next?

The report presents a roadmap for reform, but the next step is court-by-court action. Some courts are already exploring new solutions for evidence management and case tracking, while others are waiting for legislative mandates or funding opportunities.

We’re actively developing a unified solution to address these challenges, but we need court input. Your feedback will shape how the platform evolves—both for courts already using digital tools and those transitioning from manual processes.

We Want to Hear From You

• Have you faced challenges with digital evidence management?

• Is your court struggling with too many tech platforms?

• What features would actually help in your day-to-day operations?

If you’re interested in sharing your story, learning more about Liberty Docket Manager (LDM), or providing input on our next-gen platform, we’d love to hear from you.

📧 Contact us at: [email protected]