There is an old expression that a camel is a horse designed by committee.
Whenever a litigation team presents a document in a graphic way to the jury or other fact-finder at trial, there is an occasion for a document call-out. A “document call-out” is a term of art that means taking a document that is in evidence at trial and highlighting some key portion of it for easy reading and to draw the viewer's attention to the key language.
We have previously discussed how valuable timelines used as legal graphics can be in the presentation of facts at trial. As we have noted, most cases involve the placing of events along some sort of time sequence, and timelines, if they are well designed, can give jurors a straightforward introduction to the facts of a case. In fact, we recently released an e-book describing best practices for the use of timelines and legal graphics at trial.
Indata's Trial Director has become the dominant trial presentation specialty software, second only to PowerPoint in courtroom use. It is a powerful tool that is available to trial lawyers and to litigation consultants and represents the state of the art.
A recent study about the best use of litigation graphics during trial reveals some new insights. This study was conducted by Persuasion Strategies, a litigation consulting firm that is part of Holland & Hart, a law firm. The study team was led by Ken Broda-Bahm, a leader in the art of visual presentation in the courtroom. With a doctorate in speech communication that emphasizes rhetoric and legal communication, Dr. Broda-Bahm is a genuine expert in jury consulting.
by Ken Lopez The task of a trial lawyer is to convince a judge or jury to believe in the truth of a client’s case. However, in many complex trials, the underlying facts are not as easily understood by the fact-finder as they would be in, say, a murder case or a traffic accident. A case, especially the type of litigation that we are involved in, often turns on complex issues of science, medicine, engineering, or some other subject that jurors and many judges are not well versed in.
Because maps are used by jurors constantly in their daily life and because they are so frequently used to represent common locations and processes, they are one of the most frequently used and most effective types of demonstrative evidence. Whenever something can be conveyed geographically, through the use of space, it is worth considering the use of a map. Even though maps don’t always represent the highest and newest technology, their importance cannot be underestimated. In the words of Ray Moses of the Center for Criminal Justice Advocacy, which was formed in Texas as a grass-roots training resource to help new lawyers in becoming competent criminal trial practitioners: “Visuals (graphics) such as time lines, charts, illustrations, maps, etc. are sufficiently important to communicating your message that you owe it to your client and yourself to learn how to incorporate visuals into your presentation.”
In most trial presentations, the trial timeline is often the single most critical demonstrative exhibit used at trial. Much like an effective opening statement, the trial timeline: Orients the viewer; Provides a framework around which facts can be organized; Allows for easy comparison of events occurring in sequence or simultaneously; Builds trust and credibility by sharing a believable story; and even persuades when built correctly.
We often hear from clients or prospective clients that it won’t help them if they look like a big company that is attempting to overwhelm or dazzle its opponents with technology. Jurors won’t buy that sort of stuff, we are told, even from a litigant that is actually a large company.
by Ken Lopez In the courtroom, the attorney who has the best chance of winning a case is generally the one who is the best storyteller. The trial lawyer who makes the audience care, who is believable, who most clearly explains the case, who develops compelling narrative and who communicates the facts in the most memorable way builds trust and credibility.
Litigation involving architecture usually involves some failure in the construction process, a dispute over lease terms like sight lines or common areas, an insurance claim involving an allegedly negligent design, or the responsibility for a building damaged in a natural disaster. Since most jurors are familiar with architecture to some degree, what usually has to be explained is the legal meaning of seemingly everyday terms, the process of design and construction, or the common customs of the architectural and construction businesses. That's where legal graphics often enter the picture.
Because of the continuing high value to society of minerals that are mined from the earth, mining litigation, when it occurs, often involves very high stakes. This is all the more true in our high-tech era, in which a wide variety of minerals have found new, very valuable uses in cutting-edge scientific and industrial applications.
Share: