The Trial Technologist's View » Trial Presentation

What you need to know about LCD Monitors in the Courtroom

Blake Boyd — Tue, 04 May 2010 19:22:21 +0000

Technology is cheap! Acquiring a full courtroom monitor setup (plaintiff, defense, witness, judge, dual display) would cost a fortune only a couple years ago. Now you can have a slick outfit for a relatively good price. But don’t let this confuse you…

Take a quick look online and without much searching you can find a 22″ LCD monitor from companies like Acer that are under $200 and are actually pretty good looking screens. In my last trial, the competitor Litigation Support company set up 7 of them. SEVEN 22″ monitors strung throughout the courtroom. It was like walking into a technology wonderland. I really like the way it looked, but I knew how it would not perform well.

All the monitors were run through a switch that allowed for each monitor to be turned off or on in any combination. All the technology was wired and setup properly, and it ran without a hitch. But there was a huge issue, size…

The screen that was on the witness stand was so large that you could only see the face of the person testifying. My client had to turn his monitor sideways in order to see the judge and witness easier. Defense counsel left theirs up and the Judge seemed pleased with her monitors placement. But just the vast size of these monitors made it hard to see people in the courtroom.

It’s something we should all consider when choosing what piece of technology to bring into the courtroom. Going along with my theory that the technology should be as transparent as possible, the large LCD monitors just don’t fit into the equation. Ideally everyone should be able to view the projection screen, but if there isn’t a position where everyone can, I make sure that at least the judge and jury have a great view of the big screen.

I don’t see any point in bringing in screens larger than 15″-17″. I actually prefer 15″ but they are getting harder to find. The brand/model we are these Sony 15″, unfortunately they are discontinued. Also issue to note is that none of the major trial technology presentation software packages take advantage of a monster windscreen LCD properly.

I would also stress that placement is a big issue, the monitors should be as out of sight as possible, while still viewable. The easiest way to determine if a location is good is to sit behind it and look around at what you can and can’t see. Ideally the screen should not block anything.

Voir Dire Exhibit Board – Proximate Cause

Blake Boyd — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:31:40 +0000

A Trial Tech view reader from California saw our Negligence board example and had use create a similar board but with the definition of Proximate Cause. We mailed him the print and he had it mounted at Kinkos/Fedex. We printed an extra copy and mounted it, think it turned out pretty good.

Voir Dire Exhibit Board – Negligence

Blake Boyd — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:47:16 +0000

With two more trials coming up next week I went ahead and prepared some “stock boards” as we like to call them. We offer them to our clients to show the panel the actual legal definitions, rather than trying to explain from notes. We often ship these to the city we are working in and have them mounted locally as well.

While this is a Voir Dire example, using boards in litigation is effective with everything from opening statement to expert witnesses to closing arguments. With the ability to leave them laying around where the jury always gets a constant reminder of what is one them we are huge advocates of combining these with trial presentations.

Here’s an example of Negligence:

Jury Returns Verdict in Neilesh v. Lawyers Title

Blake Boyd — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:32:32 +0000

Last week I ran the technology for this Title insurance claim and the jury came back in our favor (really quickly I’d like to add). This was an interesting matter involving what was a pretty high profile (news link, news link, news link) injunction involving Neilesh’s location from attempting to lease to a gentleman’s club.

This trial was against the title insurance company that had failed to report a covenant that didn’t allow for these types of business’s in this location. Which needless to say, greatly reduced the value of the property.

The technology was basic and simple, although I did have to hook 3 different laptops into the system. The client and the attorney I was working for both wanted to show and manipulate excel spreadsheets live in trial.

Congrats to John Howell of Allen, Stein & Durbin on a well tried case and excellent $1million+ verdict!

“Magic Wall” for Courtroom Interaction of Evidence?

Blake Boyd — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:00:25 +0000

During the Election coverage the internet came alive with stories about CNN’s Hologram reporters. But what really grabbed my attention was the “Magic Wall” developed by Perceptive Pixel.

Here at the Bexar County District courthouse they have upgraded 4 courtrooms to include all the latest A/V equipment, which includes a plasma TV that the Magic Wall makes looks primitive.

The systems are designed and implemented by the great folks at William & Mary Law’s Courtroom 21 project. While in trial a few months ago the lead engineer stopped me and asked for my opinion, as I use the system on a regular basis.

My biggest complaint? They opted for a 50″ plasma TV instead of a projector. While I agree it’s more much aesthetically pleasing (and the courtrooms are absolutely beautiful), it’s too small to display documents due to Sanction and Trial Director supporting 4:3 viewing ratio and not 16:9, which all flat screen TV’s display in. But there is one great ability these screens provide.. the ability to “electronically” mark on them.

Since the TV is placed directly behind the witness box, experts can markup any document or graphic that I put on the screen. This really is a great feature, and the “Magic Wall” takes this philosophy 100 steps forward.

Adding a Magic Wall would make courtroom presentations much more interactive. For example, if you were trying a car wreck case, you could load a live feed of google maps and let the attorney or expert zoom in and fly around the accident scene, adding and moving the cars in question. While DLS includes google maps animations in our presentations on a regular basis, they are not dynamic, it’s a set animation which we cannot easily edit once we are in trial. This would not be the case if using a Magic Wall.

Like all the new technology, as of now, ~~we can’t get our hands on one~~ the price tag of $100,000 is far too expensive. But maybe someday soon I’ll be dragging one of these into the courtroom rather than our typical Projector and Screen setup!