Finney: Give power to your point at trial

May 23, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Deanna Finney  

deanna finney Finney

In this age of on-demand access, it can be difficult to keep a jury engaged by merely talking and flipping through a collection of documents, especially on a complex issue. Using technology at trials has become increasingly popular with a variety of software packages specifically intended for displaying evidence in the courtroom. While these trial presentation tools have great value, they often require advanced knowledge to operate. Many overlook a tool they already have, Microsoft PowerPoint. It was initially designed to be a presentation aid, something that could bring power to your point, but unfortunately is now often more of a crutch than an aid. There are many reasons PowerPoint is not used, underused or misused during trial.

One of the most common pitfalls with PowerPoint presentations are slides loaded with bullet points and text. Bullet points are not inherently bad; they are just not the ideal tool for learning new information. They are good for summarization and an excellent way to help organize thoughts when planning a presentation, but should not be the primary presentation tool. Images are imperative to allow jurors to visually process and remember new content. There are several great ways to break free from bullet points.

PowerPoint 2007 introduced a new feature called SmartArt which automatically transforms a bulleted list of information into a graphical display that is easy to update as information changes. It is a great tool to depict process flows, organization charts and compare or contrast data. Adjustments can be made by either manipulating the graphic or altering the bulleted list, which makes creating these graphics a breeze. Within a few clicks a polished and professional looking graphic is ready without the struggle of aligning shapes, text boxes, arrows and lines.

Timelines are also a great option for displaying data. Using a series of lines and text boxes from the shapes menu, a traditional timeline can be built. The timescale can either be horizontal or vertical depending upon the data being presented. Each event can be animated to appear one at a time to allow for discussion of each point. Additionally, there are several non-conventional timeline formats that are effective and easy to create using tables and shapes in PowerPoint. These options present an overview of data rather than a detailed view of specific events. One such example is a monthly calendar with color-coded days to indicate at a glance how many times during a month an event occurred. This is a great display choice for items such as history and severity of pain, days off from work, and sleep habits of an individual. Other historical information such as prescription drug usage and employment history can be displayed nicely in a chart with the timespan in the header row and various markers or images for each event within the body of the chart. While timelines are a fantastic tool to display the big picture of a situation, it is vital to be selective of which events are included to prevent creating a slide that is cluttered and complicated.

Another major struggle that many have faced with using PowerPoint in trial is the sequential nature of the application. Trial presentations often take unexpected turns either due to a ruling by the judge of what evidence may be displayed or because a witness says something that was unforeseen. Therefore, it is important that slides and animations can be presented or skipped on-the-fly which historically has not been easy for PowerPoint users. Traditionally slides had to be presented sequentially, but beginning in PowerPoint 2007 a new slideshow option called Presenter View was introduced. This option displays a different view for the presenter allowing them to see what slides are coming up and easily skip around without the audience knowing. Other features of this view include speaker notes, current time, time elapsed since the start of the presentation, mark-up options (including a highlighter), and a black screen option which is great for sidebars when presentations need to be temporarily hidden.

While the Presenter View allows slides to be presented out of order, it does not enable presenters to change the order of animation for a slide. For example a presenter may have a slide containing an image of an important document in which they wish to call out specific paragraphs. By default, the presenter cannot select the paragraph on-demand; instead, they are presented in whatever order was set when the slide was created. Using the triggers function in the animations pane, objects can now be set to enter or exit on a trigger rather than a consecutive order.

With a little planning and exploration, PowerPoint can be used to engage jurors and avoid some of the hurdles others have faced to bring power to your point at your next trial.•


Deanna Finney ( is a co-owner of the Indianapolis-based legal technology company, Modern Information Solutions LLC. Areas of service include traditional IT services, software training and litigation support including trial presentation services. The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.