The Trial Practice Tips Blog

For Trial: A Simple Presentation Program

Trial Fusion claims to bring "the speed and accuracy of barcode technology to your trial."

In a review at the Trial Presentation Blog, Charles Perez calls Trial Fusion "a simple, yet affordable, method to simplify an otherwise daunting task."

Courtroom Tech: "The Flash Is Not the Goal"

From the Legal Times: "Use Trial Technology but Don't Overdo It"--

Trial lawyers like the capabilities of the new litigation software, and many have grown quite comfortable going to the digital screen. As Robert Abrams notes, "It's not magic. It's what trial lawyers should know, or they're not going to be good trial lawyers." Legal Times interviews with D.C. litigators reveal that good litigators are also aware that high tech isn't always the best way to sway the jury. "The flash is not the goal," says Gregg LoCascio. "It's all about getting the message across."

The complete article, which includes short quotations from a number of lawyers, will give you lots of ideas for using (as opposed to over-using) technology at your next trial.

Powerpoint Examples from a Trial Tech

You can find some interesting examples of litigation-related Powerpoint presentations in the "PowerPoint Examples" category of Blake Boyd's The Trial Technologist's View. And you'll find more useful tips in the other categories of the weblog.

Related posts:

1. "Plaintiffs' Lawyer Mark Lanier Received Special Powerpoint Training Before First Vioxx Trial"

2. "Free Disk for Plaintiffs' Lawyers: 'Winning With Powerpoint'" 

Are You Using Too Much Courtroom Tech?

Is it possible to use too much courtroom tech? Undoubtedly, yes. When your trial technology is slowing down the trial or confusing the jury, you're trying to do too much. Here are some tips to keep in mind:

• The primary purpose of trial technology should be to help the jury learn and remember your key points. It should never confuse the jury or get in the way of understanding.
• Not every point is a key point. You don't need a timeline of unimportant events or an animation of something that doesn't matter.
• You must be comfortable with your trial technology. If you're not comfortable, the jury won't be comfortable. If you're not working the machines yourself, which you're probably not, come up with a simple shorthand method of communicating exactly what you want to your technology staff. And remember to say please.
  
• It's easy to serve up too much information. Anything you project on a screen should complement what you are saying, not compete with it.
• Remember that few jurors can do two things at once. Don't expect them to read a projected document and listen to your questions about it at the same time. If you're going to educate with technology, give the jury a chance to learn.
• When you move onto your next point, what's happening on the screen should reflect that. Don't continue to display an exhibit after you've moved on. Dim the screen immediately.
• In opening and closing, you can move beyond the reading-while-listening problem by using photos, animations, or graphics that illustrate your points, a style popularized by Mark Lanier.
• If it helps the jury to learn, comprehend, or remember, don't be afraid to entertain a little. Even though you're a lawyer, you're not required to be boring.

Finally, jurors are very sensitive to how quickly a trial is moving along. Whenever your trial technology is slowing things down, your trial technology is a mistake. Make sure your technology staff is sensitive to this important point.

Legal Podcasts: I'm Going to Listen To These Two

In terms of numbers of episodes, it's fairly new: The Digital Edge: Lawyers and Technology. But I've listened to parts of the first two episodes and they're both very interesting. I'm going to listen to them in full:

• Better than Batman’s Belt: Our Favorite Utilities

• Courtroom Technology: Lawyers Go Hollywood

Hosting The Digital Edge are Sharon Nelson, President of legal-tech company Sensei Enterprises, Inc., and Jim Calloway, director of the Oklahoma Bar Association Management Assistance Program and proprietor of Jim Calloway's Law Practice Tips. Thanks for the link to Celia C. Elwell, a paralegal in Oklahoma City.

Are Gadgets Replacing Oratory?

From the Tacoma News Tribune: "Fancy gadgets replace oratory in courtrooms," by Adam Lynn--

From PowerPoint presentations to slick graphics flashed on interactive whiteboards, computers are transforming the way justice is delivered to defendants who want their day in court.

The evidence:

• The Internet is filled with tip sheets for lawyers looking to get the most out of computer technology during trial.
• Professional legal conferences include sessions on using technology in the courtroom. A conference Friday in Tacoma was titled, “Using Courtroom Technology in Thurston County and Pierce County,” and featured speakers from both counties’ prosecuting attorney’s offices.
• Pierce County prosecutors recently debuted an interactive whiteboard that allows them to introduce evidence and re-create crime scenes for a jury with the click of a mouse.

“I certainly think it’s going in that direction,” said Michael Kawamura, who supervises Pierce County’s public defenders. Legal consultants agree.

“At a presentation I recently gave to a room of 150 to 200 lawyers, almost every one raised his hand in response to my question: ‘How many of you have used PowerPoint or an electronic presentation program in a closing?’” said Todd Flaming, an Illinois attorney and adjunct law professor who recently served as chairman of the Illinois State Bar Association’s standing committee on legal technology.

Some legal consultants tout interactive media as a way to better connect with jurors who increasingly are immersed in a gadget-filled world.

The quoted article is an example of the way lawyers are perceived in the lay press. But it's not really true that gadgets are replacing oratory; rather, gadgets are enabling a new kind of oratory. It's one that all lawyers should be familiar with. Though some lawyers with lesser-damage cases think that the use of technology might result in "over-trying" a case, one could argue that even if juries don't expect or demand technology in every case, they certainly won't object to it in a way that would be harmful to the client. The quoted article proves the point.

Related posts:

1. "Plaintiffs' Lawyer Mark Lanier Received Special Powerpoint Training Before First Vioxx Trial"

2. "Just Say No to Speaking Without Visual Aids"

The Basics of Technology in the Courtroom

Here's an article from Law Technology News, which often puts its content behind a subscription-only firewall: "Do's and Don'ts of High-Tech Trial Presentations," by Andy Seldon.

It's a basic, though useful, article of the sort that can be reread each time you're gearing up for a new trial. It's divided into ten sections--

• Failing to learn and exploit technology;
• Incompatibility;
• Objectionable evidence;
• Going solo;
• Unprepared witnesses;
• Muddy waters;
• Overusing technology;
• No backup plan;
• Failing to make the necessary arrangements with court staff and checking the local rules; and
• Not matching the technology to the case.

The article's author is the director of information services for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

A Low Cost Trial-Presentation Solution for Mac Users

You can review, analyze, and present documents and other evidence with TrialSmart, which costs only $295 for a single-user license. This makes it cheaper than its most popular competitors, e.g., Summation, Sanction, Trial Director, and LiveNote.

With TrialSmart, you can import, analyze, and present depositions, documents, video, and more. The only downside is that at present, it requires a Mac. TrialSmart won't work for Windows users.

Link from Home Office Lawyer.

Using Video at Trial: Consider the Risks

Thinking about using video at trial? In an article at Law Technology News, James McKenna and Jo Haraf remind their readers why "Video Can Be Risky Business"--

• The audio might be bad;
• The lighting might be wrong;
• The jury might not be able to see the video;
• The camera angle might be confusing;
• The speaker's mannerisms might not convey the message you are intending to convey;
• The playback might go wrong.

It's a parade of horribles, certainly, but you should be well aware of what you're getting yourself into before you use video at your next trial.

Free Disk for Plaintiffs' Lawyers: "Winning With Powerpoint"

Dave Swanner of the South Carolina Trial Law Blog publishes a CD-ROM titled "Winning with Powerpoint," which he describes like this:

I’ve put together a disk ‘Winning with PowerPoint’ that has over 100 examples for plaintiff’s attorneys. There are more than 10 opening statements, 10 closing arguments, 35 full mediations (medical malpractice, nursing homes, premises liability, car wrecks…) and more than 50 partial examples (timelines, lost wages, liability, damages…). The examples come from attorneys throughout the country.

To get the disk, click on the "Free CD Rom" button on the front of Swanner's weblog. Although free, Swanner asks that anyone who requests a disk contribute an example. Details here.