ILNews

Finney: Is trial technology a reasonable and necessary expense?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FinneyA recent decision in Suen v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., from the Nevada District Court, Clark County, demonstrated that technology at trial is a valued component and not merely a dog-and-pony show. The dispute at hand centered upon unpaid expenses for trial technology that had been deemed as not a “reasonable and necessary” expense. Despite arguments that juries have been able to reach verdicts for years without technology, Judge Rob Bare awarded financial restitution to the plaintiff in addition to a high-profile endorsement for utilizing trial technology. As reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal on Sept. 25, 2013, Judge Bare stated “I think members of a jury, most likely, are going to respect a more high-tech approach” than wading through piles of paper. “I think they will connect with it. … (It) is more than necessary in today’s modern climate. I think the judiciary should encourage this type of professional, high-caliber type of presentation.”

With on-demand access to media from essentially anywhere in the world, many jurors expect the same instantaneous displays with focused messages in the courtroom. Trial technology can include many different tools, such as the use of tablets, laptops, smartboards and complex databases. Regardless of what tools are used, some of the most effective aspects of trial technology include displaying exhibits, zooming into paragraphs, highlighting key phrases, playing video deposition clips with synchronized text, and demonstrative evidence like timelines, charts and maps.

Even with examples of trial technology, some have a difficult time understanding what benefit exists over exhibit binders, trial boards or even the ELMO. Besides the fact that our media-rich culture creates an expectation for this type of presentation, there are several other benefits including efficiency, focus, flexibility and persuasion.

Extended moments of silence in a courtroom as someone rifles through boxes or binders to find specific documents can generate feelings of boredom and aggravation often with the perception that the examiner is disorganized and wasting time. Utilizing tools like Trial Director or Sanction can eliminate those awkward moments as exhibits are pulled up immediately for the entire courtroom to see. The efficiency of displaying documents simply by referencing an exhibit or Bates number keeps things moving at a reasonable pace and creates the appearance of preparedness. As unexpected topics arise, databases can be searched to promptly locate and display documents or testimony allowing examinations to run seamlessly.

When jurors follow along in a binder, it is difficult to control whether they are following along with the line of questioning as they can easily skip ahead or flip to the wrong section. By displaying the evidence electronically you are in control of the focal point by zooming in to specific paragraphs and highlighting key sentences. Comparing documents side-by-side on the screen to show differences and similarities between versions is much more effective than flipping between sections of a binder because everyone is directed to the same section instantly. Furthermore, impeaching witnesses with focused video deposition emphasizes the severity with the inclusion of body language and tone.

Trials are full of unexpected moments that require flexibility and last-minute adjustments. Trial boards and printed graphics are not modifiable, but electronic displays allow for last-minute word substitutions in a demonstration or removal of certain timeline events. Displaying unexpected documents for a specific witness can be done without hesitation or concern around having printed copies available for the jury. Irrespective of the format, much time and effort goes into trial preparation, and nothing is more disappointing than being unable to use something after hours of elbow grease were exerted. Trial technology diminishes the likelihood of this occurring because of the flexibility that it provides.

With focused, streamlined presentations it is often easier for others to be persuaded. Momentum is not lost as a result of shuffling through folders and unorganized notes. Using tools like PowerPoint or Keynote often allow for the dots to be connected via summary slides, comparison charts and snippets of testimony thematically placed together to emphasize specific points.

As the trend to utilize trial technology grows, so does the number of tools available. Some longstanding products such as Trial Director and Sanction are specific to the legal market while others like PowerPoint and Keynote are generic presentation tools that are praised for their streamlined format, which keep people on course during opening and closing statements. When utilizing technology, it is important to remember that bad technology is worse than no technology. As such, trial teams should only use products they are comfortable with or work with a trusted and seasoned veteran. Although technology can add excitement to what may be an otherwise boring trial, the structured message presented to the jury will likely create a deeper understanding of the case and influence the verdict favorably.•

__________

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. www.miscindiana.com. 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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT