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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

ADVERTISEMENT