Using Multi-Media at Trial
Here is a guest post from Brian Ford.
As a Multimedia Trial Site Specialist, the general rule of thumb has always been that a "seamless" presentation plays best in front of a Jury. This means, in part, avoiding the use of on-screen toolbars and minimizing vocal communication between the presenting attorney and the tech specialist.
My experiences have proven otherwise, though: Jurors are (and should be) focused on the evidence, more than how seamlessly it is presented. While it is true that a well-oiled presentation certainly can't hurt, these factors are nowhere near as important as the overall quality of the evidence, and the care that has gone into designing demonstratives.
Assuming the latter, a slight lag or visual hiccup isn't going to mean much to a Jury dedicated to a contemplation of the facts and a fair interpretation of the available evidence.
I'm sorry to say that I have never worked alongside a specialist for an opposing counsel who seemed to have a solid grasp of the technologies being utilized (slow loading times, fumbling through a list of documents, etc.) and -- barring a major technology disaster -- the Jury just doesn't seem to be affected by a seamless presentation vs. the all-too-common instances in which "the tech guy" is utilizing a visible tool bar or an on-screen drop-down menu. We give ourselves too much credit to assume otherwise, and I've long since stopped patting myself on the back regarding my “superior” grasp regarding the idiosyncrasies of trial presentation software.
While it's nice to believe that an invisible presence is the "clear plastic binder" that will make all the difference (this always sounds good as a sales pitch to an attorney who is contemplating the use of a trial-site specialist) I'm convinced that it's far more beneficial to do everything in my power to make the attorney's life easier -- i.e. disturbing them as little as possible as they prep a witness -- and that doing so will ultimately make a bigger impression on any given Jury.
The biggest aspect of this strategy is maintaining a close relationship with a paralegal or associate and, yes, working a bit harder the night before to familiarize myself with the documents that will be in use, without ever having to interrupt the presenting attorney's preparation.
(Even though every attorney is different, I find that few, if any, have as much time as we would all like to dedicate to little things such as going over documents, etc. As is often the case, the "ideal situation" is very different from the real world situations we often find ourselves in.)
Ultimately, the less an attorney has to think about or deal with technology, the more impressive he/she will appear in front of a Jury, and this is true even when it comes to a less-than-seamless presentation. On that front, I feel it is more important for a specialist to be comfortable than it is to be invisible and I would never discourage the use of on-screen displays to a novice who is nervous about relying on key commands.
I don't mean to rule out the concept of seamlessness because, again, it can't hurt to come across as professionally as possible in front of a Jury. I do mean to stress that most attorneys will be at their best when allowed to prepare without distraction, and without having to consider how to operate (say) a handheld scanner at the last minute.
This behind-the-scenes scrambling will always mean more work for the technology specialist, work which will be (by design) invisible to the attorney because, in the end, the work we do as specialists the night before (often right through to the morning of) a long day in the courtroom is far more important than hiding every tell-tale sign of our presence from the Jury, which knows we’re there despite our best efforts.
Technology, no matter how precisely driven, will never win a trial and the belief that we can affect a deliberating Jury via smoke and mirrors simply doesn't hold water, even if it sounds great as a sales pitch.
In practice, I can sell myself as a specialist with much more confidence by utilizing the above strategies than I can by highlighting hollow techniques centered around technology.
Thanks for the thoughts and information Brian.
