COURT TECHNOLOGY AND TRIAL PRESENTATION

The Court Technology and Trial Presentation Blawg features articles, reviews and news of interest to lawyers and other legal professionals. This blog is published by Ted Brooks, a Trial Presentation and Legal Technology Consultant, Author and Speaker. Ted's trial experience includes the Los Angeles Dodgers divorce trial, People v. Robert Blake murder trial, and a hundreds of high profile, high value and complex civil matters.

All materials © Ted Brooks, unless otherwise indicated.

SOCIAL Twitter -- LinkedIn -- Facebook WEB www.litigationtech.com PHONE 888-907-4434

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

Cameras in the Courtroom

Now that the courts are beginning to get back to business, will we continue to have remote witnesses and juries? That's a great question, and we'd have a completely different answer had it not been for COVID-19. What we've just experienced is one of the fastest implementations of technology by the legal professions ever.

Technology, when used properly, can make you more effective and efficient in trial. It used to be a major strategic consideration whether to use TrialDirector and risk appearing as though you were spending too much money, or had very deep pockets as a defendant. Now, there is no justification for such an argument, as jurors clearly understand where the big bucks are being spent -- and it's not on a few PowerPoint slides. They might not understand the difference between slides and trial presentation software, but jurors do appreciate visuals.

So back to our question. The short and simple answer is yes and no. 

Yes, we will continue to utilize remote appearances, especially in hearings, bench trials, and for cost-savings and convenience when expert witnesses are required to travel cross-country and spend a week or so in a nice hotel. Clients simply can't justify that. 

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York has said, “They will continue, particularly when there are out-of-town lawyers who don’t want to spend two days for one hour in court on a motion that they have to argue, the judges will continue to allow, and even encourage, Zoom conferences.” (See Here to Stay: Expect Remote Hearings to Become Post-Pandemic Fixture, Panelists Say, New York Law Journal)

No, it is not at all likely that anyone wants to have jurors appearing remotely, although recent studies have shown that the majority of potential jurors would prefer to serve remotely. Further, remote service options actually increase the diversity and size of the pool. At the very least, jurors should be able to handle all the preliminary duties remotely, including initial reporting, detailed questionnaires and even voir dire. 

"It has been argued that online jury panels cannot be as diverse as a normal panel given the technology that a prospective juror would need to participate in an online trial. While we certainly experienced technology issues with a few of our prospective jurors, one must also consider the ease with which one can report for jury service. Rather than have to drive, take a bus, get a ride or otherwise find a way to travel to a central courthouse location, prospective jurors can participate as citizens from the comforts of their homes. Or, if they don’t have the proper technology, they can participate from the comforts of their local library. No system will be perfect for everyone. But, given the many people who have limited transportation options or disabilities that prevent mobility, online trials may, in fact, increase diversity and participation in our jury system." (See Online Courtroom Project Demonstration Trial)

Finally, many courts have purchased and installed remote video equipment. It isn't likely to be pushed back into the corner and never used again.    

Monday, June 28, 2021

Something Old, Something New

Trials. Exhibits. In Person. Remote. Hybrid.




We have many options, now that we're slowly climbing our way out of a global pandemic. Pre-COVID, we had only a few common options. During the first part of COVID, we literally had none. Rather quickly, the lights began to turn on again, even if most of those were monitors glowing, as opposed to courtroom lights. 

Now most of us have become proficient in online trials, arbitrations and depos. It took a pandemic to implement technology that has already been available for years. While there are both benefits and drawbacks to remote technology, it is here to stay -- maybe not in all cases, but certainly for many.

Jury Pool - This was one of the first challenges to the notion of remote trials. Jurors without adequate internet access would be excluded. While this is true, jurors with inadequate internet will also be even more likely to have concerns with transportation and the ability to spend one or more days away from home. 

Judging Credibility - Another key talking point for many opposed to remote trials is the ability to "read" a witness. While I would agree that is easier to interpret facial expressions and other gestures when standing at a conversational distance to an unmasked person, this is not the case when you add 30-40 feet of distance between individuals, and then add masks. In fact, it is far easier to see an individual's facial expressions via video display when they are unmasked and appearing with a "typical" webcam profile view distance.

Ability to Effectively Communicate - Although this is perhaps the strongest argument made by those who would insist that cases cannot be tried remotely, the mere fact that one attorney can tower over another in stature and volume in a courtroom does not necessarily add to the evidence. One interesting (and maybe good) observation has been that everyone appears about the same size, and at about the same volume level when appearing remotely. The playing field has been leveled.

We will be looking at putting it all together in upcoming posts.