USE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN TRIALS

Use of Scientific Evidence in Trials

Use of Scientific Evidence in Trials

Despite the availability of scientific evidence, most trial lawyers still present exhibits to juries the old-fashioned way: holding up pictures; passing documents to jurors, and using blow-ups on easels that the jury can barely see. That is no longer the best way to present evidence, particularly in document-intensive cases, and is certainly an inefficient use of courtroom time. This chapter discusses electronic alternatives to help lawyers present their evidence at trial.

Visual presenters are electronic devices that combine a video camera with projection equipment. They are indispensable tools for juries, and even mechanically dysfunctional attorneys find them easy to use.

Typically, three pieces of electronic equipment are required to use a visual presenter in court: the visual presenter, a video monitor, and a videotape or compact disc recorder. (Multi-task computers, able to process compact discs (CDs) or digital video discs (DVDs), are preferred in place of single-use recorders.) Support companies specializing in electronic courtroom assistance can pre-wire the courtroom and be available for technical assistance throughout the trial, if necessary. The equipment can be rented or purchased. If you purchase the courtroom equipment, it will pay for itself if you use it frequently. (Satiani 2006)

When electronic scientific evidence was new, many lawyers refused to use it at trial because they wanted to avoid common glitches that caused irritating disruptions. Such concerns are virtually nonexistent with visual presenters because a visual presenter is nothing more than a video camera connected to a monitor. It is better than an overhead projector because the jury sees the actual exhibit - not a transparency. As the witness testifies and examines a document, the admitted exhibit is placed on the visual presenter and is projected to the jury. The jury sees the exhibit at the same time the witness sees it.

If the exhibit is a photograph, you can save a significant amount of money by avoiding expensive reproductions. For example, if the video monitor has a 64-inch screen, the jury sees a 64-inch projection of the photograph. If the courtroom has a large white wall available to use as a "screen," the images will be even larger. The witness, the questioning lawyer, the jury, and the judge can all see the exhibit at the same time. That is a significant improvement over the old methods of presenting evidence.

It is a simple matter to pre-wire the courtroom, and it should be managed by technical people. You must receive prior approval from the court and make sure that the wires and cables are properly positioned so they do not create distractions. You can typically receive court approval by discussing it with the court just prior to trial. (Kassirer 2002)

This writer has never had a court refuse to allow the use of a visual presenter. Juror reaction has been universal: seeing exhibits while witnesses explain their significance is extremely helpful to the juror in understanding and, more importantly, in retaining the ...