Trial Technology: Buying justice or going the extra mile for the jury?

by Michael Boucher

In America today we are an overwhelmingly multimedia society and I don’t think there would be any disagreement.  That being the case, why are some lawyers still fearful that the jury will see trial technology as buying justice or creating the image that their client has money?  The reality of trial technology is that jurors appreciate it and often times, expect it.  There are many advantages of trial technology and I don’t suggest that it is the only presentation methodology that should be utilized in the courtroom.  Technology does however have distinct benefits that only come with its use.  Rather than going through a laundry list of the pros and cons of trial technology, let’s look at it from the perspective of what issues it solves or alleviate. 

From a jurors perspective what are the top three main complaints that seem to be a staple in most cases?  From our post verdict research the top complaint is boredom.  The use of trial technology has a component of entertainment.  Moreover, the delivery of information via a computer screen or projector is a familiar medium with today’s jurors, regardless of age.  Yet, often times I hear from our clients that a particular jurisdiction has a higher percentage of elderly and that technology is not the way to go.  I strongly disagree with that position.  Technology touches every segment of our society and is just as prevalent with seniors as it is with middle aged America.  Presentation software such as Trial Director and even PowerPoint have features that mimic television flash and effect.  Trial Director has a variety of document callout effects that are basically identical to Dateline and other television newsmagazines productions.  Another feature inData has incorporated into their product is video clip fade.  This features provides a more polished and professional presentation, again similar to television newsmagazines.  These features provide excitement to what is otherwise dry and boring information.  The key with any presentation is to mix it up.  Too much of anything is not good and will desensitize jurors.  Trial technology with all of its features and effects provide trial attorneys with the tools to make their case more interesting and fresh.  Keeping the jury engaged in any length trial can be difficult.  Proper use of technology in trial will keep the jurors focused on your case and not looking for distractions to ease their pain of boredom. 

The second main stay in juror complaints is the lack of understanding in the subject matter of a case.  Using technology to teach is prevalent in our class rooms and corporate training alike.  Trial attorneys who take the time and effort to educate jurors have a leg up on their opposing counsel.  How exactly does trial technology aid in education?  The key aspect is the ability to narrow down the information and direct jurors to the particular aspects of the evidence that are most relevant.  Many cases have thousands of pages of discovery documents but the reality is that only a small portion of the total will be used at trial.  Although attorneys and professionals in the legal industry may think it is a small portion, to jurors it is in all likelihood potentially overwhelming amounts of information.  The use of technology allows lawyers to present more information rather than less.  It is the details of particular documents, other evidence and demonstrative aides that weave the threads in any case.  Jurors can get lost in the information and be confused by focusing on irrelevant parts of the evidence.  The ability to focus on key parts of the evidence simplifies the case and facts for jurors.  One of the most effective uses of technology to educate the jury is a multimedia approach and in particular using a timeline on a large board.  The timeline gives the jury a comprehensive picture of the events and the sequence in which they occurred.  Combine this then with the use the technology to support and prove the timeline entries with evidence.  Whether it is from documents, testimony, admissions or omissions of a party, these elements tie into the timeline and take it from a demonstrative to a case blueprint. 

The third most frequent complaint is lack of organization.  Attorneys who are not organized or take excessive amounts of time to present evidence often anger jurors.  One such case in particular comes to mind.  A couple of years ago I was working for the defense on a medical malpractice case.  The plaintiff went down that all too familiar road of, “We are not some big company with lots of money to spend on technology.  We are here for justice for our client who doesn’t have the financial resources to put all of these fancy computers in here.”  This tactic did not help his case at all.  The attorney was constantly looking for documents and transcripts, fumbling through boards for the right one.   The plaintiff then had the need to play a video deposition for the jury.  His assistant carries in a chair and a CRT television with built in DVD player.  The assistant, a large man in a sports coat, proceeds to bend over stretching out his jacket to the sides with his back to the jury about two feet from the rail of the jury box.  After this unimpressive presentation the jurors began their deliberations.  Within one hour they returned with a defense verdict.  After the jury was released I surveyed the jurors about the case and remarkably all jurors commented on the plaintiff’s lack of organization and how smooth the defense was.  They further went on to express their utter disgust with the plaintiff’s counsel and in particular his assistant’s presentation of the video deposition.  Two of the six jurors stated that, “that man sticking his **** in our face was disgusting.”  While technology is not the only way to organize your case, it is without doubt the most seamless and effective.

These three common issues with jurors, boredom, lack of understand, disorganization and the use of technology to eliminate or avoid them is not a matter of law per se.  What this demonstrates is that often time’s jurors go outside the evidence and look towards tangential factors in rendering their verdicts.  Often, these tangential factors are not the reason for their position on the case, but add to the magnitude and fervor they have in their position in deliberations.