Final answer:
The statement is True; judges can use video conferencing for sentencing, and the use varies by jurisdiction and specific laws of the district. Video conferencing in courts is a practice adopted for various reasons, including health, security, or procedural efficiency. The option for an appeal to a higher court remains regardless of sentencing method.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judges can indeed use video conferencing for sentencing, making the statement True. With the advancements in technology, courts have adopted video conferencing, particularly when in-person attendance is not possible or practical. For example, circumstances like the defendant's health issues, security risks, or the need to expedite the proceedings may warrant the use of video conferencing.
Change of venue requests, which may be made when a fair trial is at risk due to external factors like pre-trial publicity, are unrelated to the ability of judges to use video conferencing for sentencing. It's important to note that while judges can sentence via video conferencing, the practice might vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific laws governing the district where the crime was committed.
At the trial court level, where criminal cases are generally heard, both a judge and a jury are usually present. The jury determines guilt, and the judge decides the penalty, except in some states where the jury also has a say in the penalty. If a defendant is not found 'not guilty,' the losing party, either prosecution or defense, has the right to appeal the decision to a higher court, which could be a special appellate court or the highest state court, often the state supreme court.