Archived issues... January 2005 March 2005 May 2005 July 2005 September 2005 November 2005 January 2006 March 2006 May 2006

Effective Courtroom Presentation

Technology helps capture attention.

By Paul J. Unger

Creating a clear, lasting impression of your story during trial is critical to the success of a case. When the jury doesn’t understand an issue or starts dozing off, the entire case can be jeopardized. James Dyer, an attorney with Sebaly Shillito & Dyer, recognized this in the fall of 2002 while preparing for a document-intensive, complex intellectual property case in Dayton, Ohio.

The case involved thousands of pages of monotonous business documents and a great deal of product packaging that would have to be retrieved and displayed to the court quickly. Dyer realized he needed to instantly access thousands of pages of deposition testimony (paper and video) for impeachment purposes, display dozens of images from product packaging on the fly without having to dig up giant foam boards and reinforce key themes using computer-generated graphics.

Defining Objectives

When preparing for the case, Dyer and the firm’s Information Technology director, Brian Clayton, decided to hire HMU Consulting Inc. to help them implement the technology they would use in the courtroom. Dyer’s objectives were clear:

• select the most effective software and hardware for courtroom presentations;
• present images and documents flawlessly in court without interrupting Dyer’s momentum and thoughts; and
• enable the firm to use the technology on its own.

With the volume of paper, images and deposition testimony the case involved, it was clear that Microsoft PowerPoint was not going to be a viable solution. PowerPoint serves well in the more rehearsed parts of the trial (i.e., the opening and closing statements), but it’s much too linear and limited for spontaneous retrieval and displaying exhibits. Moreover, PowerPoint was not made to handle the volume of images and thousands of pages involved in this deposition testimony.

We had several packages from which to select, including Sanction by Verdict Systems, TrialDirector by inData or Visionary by Visionary Legal Technologies. These are trial presentation databases primarily designed to store and instantly display documents, illustrations, photographs and depositions.

Combining Choices

The backbone technology the firm chose to use in the trial was Sanction. I recommended Sanction for several reasons. The product is very stable, having used it on a daily basis for several years. Also, Sanction offers an excellent training program, is very accessible and teaches the client how to become self-sufficient. This was a perfect fit for Sebaly Shillito, as one of the primary goals was for attorneys or IT staff to be able to handle smaller cases on their own.

To compliment Sanction, I suggested the firm use PowerPoint for the opening statement, closing argument and select parts of the trial. PowerPoint works well to create animated timelines and bulleted lists. You can launch PowerPoint shows directly from presentation mode in Sanction, so it’s seamless.

Get the Ball Rolling

I started by assisting Sebaly Shillito in organizing and creating its exhibit notebook so we could convert it to a digital exhibit notebook with little trouble later. It’s very important that the person operating Sanction is on the same page as the attorney who needs to retrieve and display the exhibits. It’s essential each page is clearly numbered in a consistent location so the attorney can simply tell the operator to display the specific page of an exhibit.

In this case, once the exhibit notebooks and index were fairly complete, we were ready to scan and import the images into Sanction. There were several thousand pages of documents, and we used Sanction’s built-in scanning utility, which auto-numbered and named the documents. We also used Visioneer’s Strobe XP 100 universal serial bus-powered sheetfed scanner in the courtroom to scan unexpected documents from the other side that were not yet in the system. Following this case, Dyer’s firm invested in a Canon imageRunner for a central copier and scanner, Hewlett-Packard Scanjets for every workstation, and Ipro Tech’s eScan-IT to scan and Bates number documents and images. Without the assistance of outside vendors, the firm has scanned hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and imported them directly into programs such as Sanction and Summation.

The Training

We killed two birds with one stone by using the actual exhibits as the subject material to teach Dyer’s staff how to create, prepare and load images into the Sanction database. We were able to teach them about the ins and outs of scanning, proper resolution, adjusting image quality, organizing the database and creating backup systems.

Short rehearsal sessions with the attorneys were essential to the success of the project. Since there were attorneys involved in the case, everyone had to understand the naming scheme of the exhibits and how the system worked so the retrieval and display of the images would be flawless. These sessions take very little time, but are one of the most important elements to the success of the system. It instills confidence and comfort, and ensures maximum communication between the attorney and consultant.

During the trial, the firm’s designated trainee, Clayton, shadowed me as I went through what he needed to know about retrieving and displaying images, PowerPoint shows and depositions. I let Clayton operate the backup computer right next to me in court, as if it was the main computer displaying the image.

Trial Equipment

During the trial, we had a primary laptop and a backup laptop plugged into a Belkin switch box at all times, just in case one failed. We used a Maxtor external hard drive to back up the database and underlying image files and video. We selected an NEC liquid crystal display projector because of the company’s reputation, warranty and next-day replacement guarantee. We also had the firm’s projector as a backup just in case our primary projector failed. Sebaly Shillito invested in a Samsung digital document camera prior to trial to display 3-D objects. The courtroom was laid out in a way that allowed us to use one large Da-Lite 8-foot Insta-Theatre movie screen and two 19-inch HP flat-panel monitors for the witness stand and judge, and a single Da-Lite Project-o-Stand to hold the projector. We also used a Belkin OmniView video splitter to control which monitors and projectors displayed images. Finally, we used an American Power Conversion uninterruptible power supply for the projector to protect it from unexpected power loss.

Revolutionary Ending

The trial completed without a hiccup. Sanction was the perfect application for this trial for many reasons. Showing the similarity of the opposing party’s product packaging was critical in this case. It was key to illustrate how market confusion was created between two products. What impressed me the most was Sanction’s ability to pull up competing product packaging, side-by-side and then zoom in on words or pictures to compare the similarity of the packaging. All of this was done virtually instantaneously. This feature allowed the jury to focus its attention on the exact point or detail discussed, which would not have been done with traditional foam boards or a digital document camera. We were able to pull exactly what we wanted from a document or label and maximize it on the screen.

While I can’t discuss details of the case, everyone involved agreed the project was a complete success. Every objective was achieved. Today, Dyer’s firm flies solo with Sanction on most cases and refers to my consulting firm only in larger cases. Dyer believes this technology is essential in most cases. “It has revolutionized the way we try cases today,” Dyer said.

Paul J. Unger is an attorney and founding member of Henley March & Unger Consulting Inc. based in Ohio. He specializes in trial presentation consulting, case management software and legal-specific software training for law firms and legal departments throughout the Midwest. Prior to forming HMU, Unger was the vice president of a Columbus, Ohio-based technology consulting firm. Unger also is an adjunct professor at Columbus’ Capital University Law School’s paralegal program and lecturer for continuing legal education programs throughout the United States.

Entire contents copyright © 2005 James Publishing, Inc.

All Rights Reserved.

The Consultant: Paul J. Unger is an attorney and founding member of Henley March & Unger Consulting Inc. in Columbus, Ohio. HMU works with law firms and legal departments to design and implement sophisticated document assembly systems; prepare trial presentations; provide litigation support; plan and implement case management, billing and accounting software; and develop comprehensive technology plans.

The Firm: Sebaly Shillito & Dyer is a 22-attorney firm in Dayton, Ohio. Sebaly Shillito has three main departments specializing in corporate law, litigation and estate planning. The litigation department handles all levels of dispute resolution, from probate and employment cases to the most sophisticated, complex commercial litigation.