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 ( 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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.