ILNews

Finney: Give power to your point at trial

May 23, 2012
Keywords
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 (deanna.finney@miscindiana.com) 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT