The Multimedia Trial
How to Make the Most
of Your Courtroom Presentation
By
Ric Dexter1 with J. David Rowe2
© Copyright 2005.
In the Fall of 2004, the Honorable John K. Dietz, District Court Judge for
the 250th Judicial District of Travis County, Texas, presided over a month-long
evidentiary hearing before ruling that Texas' school finance system is
unconstitutional in the groundbreaking West Orange-Cove Consolidated I.S.D.
v. Neeley case. To promote efficiency, Judge Dietz insisted that the parties
present exhibits to the court in an electronic form:
In The 250th Judicial District Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Cause NO. GV-100528
West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, Et Al
VS.
Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner Of Education,
Et Al
Volume 5, August 10, 2004
16 THE COURT: ...
19 to the extent possible, this will be a paperless
20 hearing. We do recognize that the appellate courts will
21 need a paper record of the exhibits.
22 Counsel for all parties and the Court have
23 agreed that to the extent possible, we will admit those
24 en masse at some point and to the extent that we use
25 electronic exhibits during the hearing, they will be
page 6
1 provisionally admitted and then will be fully admitted when
2 the paper record is admitted to the court reporter.
And by insist, we mean insist:
Volume 12, August 19, 2004
23 MS. DOVER: Your Honor, Ism going to be
24 referring back and forth between the bar graph and this chart,
25 and because of the difficulty, would it be okay if I give the
page 132
1 witness and you a copy of this chart so we don't have to keep
2 going back and forth?
3 THE COURT: You're going to ask us to use
4 paper?
5 MS. DOVER: I know it's against the rules.
6 THE COURT: After ten days of assiduous use of
7 electronics, you're going to hand me paper. I've got to take a
8 break.
9 MS. DOVER: Simply for convenience.
10 THE COURT: We're going to take a break. See
11 if you can't figure out something else.
While Judge Dietz's insistence that counsel use electronic means to display
exhibits during the hearing may have been somewhat unusual, the actual use of
technology in the courtroom is far more ordinary than extraordinary. Not so very
long ago, the question was whether you could get away with using technology in
your trial: will the Court permit it? will it work? will it alienate the jury?
The question today, however, is not whether, but how much: video depositions?
PowerPoint for opening? digital display of exhibits?
The people who serve on juries, as well as the judges who preside over those
trials, are accustomed to obtaining critical information from a
computer/television screen. With few exceptions, computers are common in the
workplace, and 68 percent of American households are connected to the internet.3
Television viewers are inundated with news shows that use sophisticated
graphics to display all sorts of models and documentary evidence. Who hasn't
seen "60 Minutes" highlight the critical portions of voluminous documents on
national TV to emphasize a point? Even the fake news cable program "The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart" uses multi-media presentations to keep its audience
entertained and tuned-in.
According to Ted Brooks, a California litigation technology vendor
"It is estimated that approximately one-third of our national jury pool is
part of generations X (born 1965-1980) and Y (born after 1980). The remainder
is made up of approximately 40 percent baby boomers (born 1946-1964), leaving
only about one-fourth in the group least likely to have a high degree of
familiarity and exposure to computers, multimedia, and the like."4
The average juror expects a multi-media presentation, and more and more
lawyers are realizing that fact. And the better lawyers are figuring out how to
use multimedia to their advantage. This article outlines some of the things that
the authors have learned from their first-hand experience using multimedia in
the courtroom.
A LITTLE THEORY
No matter the size or scope of the trial or hearing, the advocate's job is as
much teacher as anything. In many cases, your jury--and even the Judge, in some
instances--will have little experience with the specifics of your case.
Experience shows that the audience in most cases is willing, even eager, to
learn what the case is about so they can do their job--reach a decision. The
audience is waiting for someone to teach them. Will it be you or your opponent?
Theories of learning are numerous, and a comprehensive discussion is beyond
the scope of this article, not to mention the author's grasp. We have, however,
had success when applying the concepts of active learning theory to our
multimedia trials.
The three elements of active learning are Selecting, Organizing and
Integrating.5 In the "Selecting" process the judge/jurors pick the
key words and images they feel are important. The audience then
"Organizes" the
information by looking for concepts that tie the selected words and images
together. Finally, those concepts are "Integrated" into the
individual's own
experience and world view.
Much has been written on the importance of developing case themes, which is
absolutely essential. But the active learning model teaches that themes are only
one piece of the puzzle--they help the audience "organize" information.
Effective advocates understand that true teaching is a more complete and
involved process. And the very best advocates use multimedia to their advantage
when preparing their cases with the active learning model in mind so that the
judge/jury "knows" at his/her core being what the "truth" is, days or even
weeks later, when it is time to deliberate.
THE TOOLS
The authors define "multimedia" as any method of combining images and
narration for displaying an evidentiary asset. In trial or an evidentiary
hearing, the counsel and witnesses provide the narration. The image can be trial
boards, physical exhibits, or images projected on a screen. Any software that
puts an image on the screen can be used for a multimedia presentation. Which
program you use will largely depend on the how many and what kind of images you
want to project, and how those images will be used.
The three most commonly used tools for multimedia presentation are trial
boards, linear presentation programs, and trial presentation programs. The
better multimedia presentations will use all three of these, for different
purposes.
For linear presentations, i.e., those designed to follow a specific script,
such as opening statement or closing argument, the tool of choice is one of
several popular presentation programs: Corel Presentation; Apple Keynote;
Astound Presentation; and Microsoft PowerPoint.
The basics of these programs are simple to learn, and recent improvements
make them useful tools. The addition of "Flash" movies or animated .GIF files
can give them a more professional look and feel.
If you have something you want to leave in front of the jury for extended
periods that will relate to multiple witnesses, a trial board is appropriate.
This could be something like a timeline, a cast of characters or organizational
chart, or even part of that "smoking gun" email you found during your
electronic discovery.
During direct and cross-examination of witnesses you will need access to all
your exhibits. For paper documents, there are several software programs designed
for this purpose. Sanction II, Trial Director, Visionary, and Trial Pro are the
most popular of this genre. With these programs you can easily call up
documents, zoom in on a section of the document, and highlight key words or
phrases.
For physical exhibits that are too small to be displayed without enhancement,6
document cameras (sometimes called by the brand name "Elmo") are a good choice.
These devices have cameras whose images are displayed electronically to the jury
by monitor or projector. By placing the exhibit under the camera, you can
enlarge and point out key characteristics of the exhibit. Document cameras may
also be used to display documents, but the authors prefer not to use them for
documents, except in unusual circumstances, because the zoom and focus features
can be distracting and even downright dizzying.
Trial presentation software also allows you to use videotape depositions
either to present or to impeach a witness. Unlike playing a videotape on a VCR,
if the video is properly digitized, trial presentation software allows you to
call up segments of the deposition by page and line number. This means you (or
your tech) can edit the deposition on the fly, or call up only small excerpts
for impeachment. You can easily make changes in the edit of the deposition, and
print out a transcript of the edited deposition for yourself, opposing counsel
and the court reporter. It is also possible to make a copy of the edited video
to send opposing counsel for review, or for the court record. Plus, if you
synchronize the electronic version of the transcript with the digitized video,
the software allows you to display the transcript that corresponds with the
testimony.
Transcripts can also be shown to the jury using transcript management
programs, such as Summation, LiveNote, and E-Trans. Although these tools are
typically used to prepare for trial, they can also be useful during the trial
itself if you need for some reason to search the deposition record to look for
specific testimony and/or page/line references, You can also display to the
Court or jury a portion of a deposition transcript that has not been digitized
and/or synchronized. (This is an exception to the rule we will discuss later of
not wanting to read the exact language on the screen.)
No matter what specific tool you are using you must always see the trial as
an integrated whole. Don't look at the media used in opening as one thing
separate from the media used in examination and cross examination separate from
the media in your closing statement. With that consistency in mind, you begin to
design your opening with an eye toward how your evidence will progress, toward
the look and feel of your presentation, and toward the result you want to
achieve.
THE "RULES"
As M. Ethan Katch, law professor at the University of Massachusetts, observes
"The high technology invasion of the legal process is in full swing."7
Even so, there are few rules of evidence or procedure written specifically to
address technology in the courtroom.8 And there are even fewer
"rules" to help guide advocates in using effectively this flood of
technology.
But fewer does not mean non-existent. Indeed, Edmund Tufte's "Principles
of Graphical Excellence" includes some very helpful principals for
preparing excellent and honest graphical representations. Tufte says that
graphical excellence is the well-designed presentation of interesting data w a
matter of substance, of statistics, and of design. Tufte says that
"graphical excellence" requires the following:
complex ideas are communicated with clarity, precision, and
efficiency; the greatest number of ideas are presented to the viewer in the
shortest time with the least ink in the smallest space; multivariation; and
telling the truth about the data.9
Tufte also posits certain "principles of graphical integrity,"
including the following:
The representation of numbers, as physically measured on the surface of the
graphic itself, should be directly proportional to the numerical quantities
represented. This is expressed in the "lie factor" of a graph.
Lie Factor = the size of an effect shown in graphic/size of effect in
data.
Clear, detailed and through labeling should be used to defeat graphical
distortion and ambiguity. Write out explanations of the data on the graphic
itself. Label important events in the data. Show data variation, not design
variation. In time-series display of money, deflated and standardized units of
monetary measurement are nearly always better than nominal units. The number
of information carrying (variable) dimensions depicted should not exceed the
number of dimensions in the data. Graphs must not quote data out of context.10
THE OPENING STATEMENT
Opening statements lend themselves well to static displays (e.g., foam
boards), presentation of physical exhibits, and use of slide show type program
like PowerPoint. PowerPoint can be a powerful tool, but it can also be easily
misused. It has become so ubiquitous and has such an easy learning curve that
everyone who has access to it begins to feel like a pro within a few weeks.
Confidence, however, is not synonymous with competence.
Clifford Stoll, in "The Plague of PowerPoint," says "Imagine a
boring slide show. Now add lots of generic, irrelevant, and pyrotechnic
graphics. What have you got? A boring slide show, complete with irrelevant whiz
bang graphics."11 And Tufte, in the conclusion of his article
"Power Corrupts, PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely," states
"PowerPoint is a competent slide manager and projector. But rather than
supplementing a presentation, it has become a substitute for it."12
For purposes of this article, we share the following observations about
effective use of slide shows during trial:
Less is more.
Sentences bad--bullets good.
Cute little graphics add clutter, not information.
Avoid those busy background decorations.
White/blank space is necessary, not wasteful.
Use animation if it helps, not because it's cool.
Use color to convey information; e.g., green is good, red is bad.
Use uniform color scheme throughout slide show.
Change font style and size sparingly, and only to convey information.
Slide transitions should be uniform, not random.
Use slides to emphasize or illustrate a point; don't read a slide to the jury.
And the number one rule in using PowerPoint: "Just because you can
doesn't mean you should." All too often, because programmers make tricky
animations and funny pictures available, people think they should use them. More
often than not, these toys detract and distract. Evidence presented to a court
should not remind you of a children's cartoon or a late night television
commercial, unless the case involves late night television commercials, or
children's cartoons.
The simplest design elements are often the most effective.
Multimedia used in any presentation should be used to enhance the
presentation. When it begins to overwhelm the presentation, all of Tufte's and
Brook's criticisms are proven, and the common misinterpretation of "The medium
is the message"13 becomes true. You are no longer presenting
evidence, you are staging a canine and equine extravaganza, a dog and pony show.
Virgil, K.D. Lange, and Tufte all remind us that the first rule of speaking is
"Respect your audience."
THE WITNESSES DIRECT EXAMINATION
As a general rule, the best method for presenting documents during
examination of a witness is by using trial presentation software. The most
popular of these allow you to create files with images of each page of each
exhibit, and to call them to the screen with a few keystrokes. Using trial
presentation software, the operator can easily zoom in on a particular paragraph
and highlight key language, allowing the jury to follow the message--essentially
keeping all eyes on the same part of the same page.
When the situation calls for it you can put two or more documents on the
screen to compare the language, to show the source of a statement, or clarify a
cause and effect relationship.
Smaller, less complex cases may permit an attorney or legal assistant to
operate the presentation program, but larger, more complex cases are better left
to experienced technicians who can devote all their time and energy to
"driving" during the trial. Omitting the trial technician
theoretically saves the cost of another professional in the courtroom, but there
are hidden costs that may offset the savings. No matter how basic the task, even
a slight problem can distract the attorney presenting the case. During the
Florida "hanging chad" hearings, more than one attorney tried to put a
document on the screen to make a point, only to have nothing but a white wall in
front of the judge, with other counsel and most of America watching. As these
very able attorneys struggled with the technology, their point was diminished,
if not lost. Likewise, when a Legal Assistant is driving, s/he is not available
to fulfill the normal jobs they have in court.
If you have a dedicated trial specialist operating the equipment, that person
will be better prepared to solve any equipment problems that should arise. She
is better trained and has more time to revise your presentation on the fly.
She's also better prepared to solve any technical problems that may arise.
In advance of the trial, the advocate and technician must work together to
identify, load, and label the documents so they will be readily available during
the course of the trial. Document images are saved in files accessible through a
database and can be called up by the exhibit number or the bates number. Other
identifiers can be used to access documents. Your choices are limited only by
your imagination--or the rules of evidence. You can call your favorite document
"proof of their skullduggery" but you might get an objection every
time you ask for it, and the appeals court might want to know the exhibit
number. If the trial exhibits have been pre-marked and exchanged in advance,
identifying the images by exhibit number is generally the best method. Whatever
method you use, you should establish a consistent protocol before you set up
your database.
The process of preparing for direct examination of your witness generally
involves knowing which documents, and which part of those documents you want to
show the jury. Sharing this list with your tech before the witness goes on the
stand will make you both look more prepared.
A good communication protocol will let you call for the evidence you want to
emphasize without having to fully describe it. For example, an awkward exchange
may go something like this:
"Mr. Techguy, put Exhibit 23 on the screen. Now go to the page with
section IV, now zoom on the second full paragraph and highlight the second
sentence. Now Mr. Witness can you see that sentence?"
But a more prepared and practice protocol sounds more smooth:
"Mr. Witness, please look at Exhibit 23, page 7. I'd like to direct
your attention to the second sentence in Section IV, and ask you..."
In addition to using the presentation software to display documents to the
jury and witness, it's also possible to use more static exhibits that have been
prepared in advance. For example, charts or graphs might be displayed on foam
boards or on a PowerPoint slide. Likewise, spreadsheets, charts, and graphs can
be displayed from a program like Microsoft Excel. Like everything else, of
course, these types of exhibits require advance preparation and ideally
rehearsal.
THE WITNESSES CROSS EXAMINATION
Much of what we discussed in the "Direct Examination" section
applies to cross examination. A big difference is that you are often less
prepared to display the documents used during direct examination, unless there
was a pretrial exchange of trial exhibits in time for them to have been properly
imaged and loaded into your trial presentation database, which is the best way
to get prepared for trial. If trial exhibits haven't been exchanged, then the
next best option is to make sure that the entire universe of possible documents
have been loaded into the database so they can be called up upon request.
Another, less effective option, is to have a document camera and paper copies of
all documents at the ready. If an advocate anticipates using a document camera,
she should be sure to practice. Document cameras present their own challenges,
particularly the zoom and focus features.
One of the biggest assets multimedia brings to the cross examination table is
the ability to impeach a witness with contrary deposition testimony. As
discussed above, if the video deposition has been properly digitized and
synchronized, and the advocate has identified in advance for the trial tech all
potential page and line references that may be needed, contrary testimony can be
displayed very effectively. Few things are as dramatic as having a witness say X
on the stand, and then sit, forced to watch herself say Y on video.
THE WITNESSES BY VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION
Most trial presentation programs will allow you to play all or edited
excerpts of videotape deposition testimony with synchronized closed captions of
the transcript, but only if the videos have been digitized and synchronized in
advance. The editing should be done in advance, but unlike conventional analog
media (i.e., video tapes and VCRs), changes are much easier and faster to make.
Indeed--most techs will hate us for telling you this part--edits can be made
right up to the moment you begin to play. And if your tech is really skilled, it
may even be possible to edit the later clips during playback of the earlier
clips. But no tech worth her salt would ever admit this, and no lawyer worth his
salt would ever think to ask. But we've been told it's possible.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
An effective closing statement will summarize all the points you have made
during trial and remind the jury of the facts that prove your case. The images
you use will be the ones you have been using throughout the trial. If your case
is proven in the documents, show the documents. If you have had particularly
compelling graphics, use them again.
Meyer, in Multimedia Learning describes a Concise Narrated Animation.
Features: Description
Multimedia: Includes corresponding narration and animation rather than
animation alone
Integrated: Corresponding animation and narration are presented simultaneously
rather than successively
Concise: Extraneous words, pictures, and sounds are excluded rather than
included
Channeled: Words are presented as speech rather than on-screen text or both
speech and on-screen text)
Structured: Includes series of narrated animation segments describing steps in
the process (for cause and effect material)
Features listed above are those which showed in his studies to elicit the
highest responses in the transfer and retention of information in a multimedia
process.14
Remember also, it is not required that something be on the screen at all
times. Good lawyers have known for decades that lowering one's voice can
emphasize a point as much--or even more than--a raised voice can. Similarly, a
black screen can serve to emphasize a dramatic point, or maybe just suggest
nonverbally that the speaker is changing topics.
Many lawyers use some time in closing argument to go through the questions in
the charge and suggest appropriate answers. Although we disfavor the document
camera for most applications, this is a good time to use it. Handwriting the
answers while the jury follows along is a powerful, none too subtle suggestion
of how they should fill out the questions when they retire to deliberate. You
can also display the questions in a text format, and type in the answers as they
are suggested. Or, with the appropriate software, scanned images can be
similarly appended.
THE EQUIPMENT
Before any of the above can be done the courtroom will need to be set up.
More and more courts, as mentioned earlier, have at lease some type of equipment
pre-installed. But there is no consistency in what you may find in the
courtrooms. To find out what equipment is available, you can contact the court
or go to www.courtroominformationproject.net
When the courtroom has no (or limited) equipment installed, you will
need to bring in your own, after you get permission from the court. We have yet
to encounter a court which would not allow any equipment, but some do have
certain restrictions. Some courts have limited space and therefore restrict size
and or placement of screens. Some older courthouses have limited power
available, thereby limiting the available electrical load.
Our recommended list of equipment to have in the courtroom includes:
Computer with sufficient storage for all evidentiary assets
Backup computer
Projector (2700 lumen +) and a spare bulb
6 to 8 foot screen for jury
Flat panel monitors for witness, judge, and counsel
Sound system
Switch and distribution amplifier
Document camera
Cables, floor guards and or Gaffer's tape (not duct tape)
A portable scanner
Easels, paper pads, markers
Optional equipment for the courtroom includes:
A laser pointer
An external communications channel
An internal communications channel
A printer
Because of security concerns you may have to get advance permission from the
judge to bring the equipment into the courtroom. Being stopped at the door, sent
to the loading dock, and waiting for the judge to arrive at the courthouse can
cut down on the time you have available to set up the equipment, Because setting
up, wiring, and testing the equipment could take up to two hours, it is best to
set it up in the day before the first use. Most courts will lock up for the
night, but will not take responsibility for your equipment. You should be aware
of what kind of security you will have for your equipment. The judge may need to
use the courtroom for other purposes. Your equipment should always be placed
with the utmost consideration for the court, and in places where it can be
discreetly removed.
BEFORE THE TRIAL ADVANCE PREPARATION
All of what we have discussed requires advance preparation.
Asking "how much in advance" is like asking "how long is a
string?" Let's begin with how long each required task takes.
If you are going to use any images in the opening they need to be created.
From concept to creation these take, well, however long they take. Organizing
them into a presentation requires some sort of script or outline. The outline
for the opening and closing are generally not done until hours, if not moments
before they are needed. It is therefore important that charts and graphs, images
and clips, documents and exhibits be prepared in advance of needing them.
To set up a case shell in the trial presentation software takes only a matter
of minutes. But then you have to import the images, the database, the video, the
synchronized transcripts and any other evidentiary assets you intend to use in
trial.
Importing the images and database for the images into your trial presentation
program could take from several minutes to several hours, depending on the
volume of documents. In the West Orange-Cove case, there were more than a
million and a half pages in the trial database and over 10 million pages in the
universe of documents. It took 3 to 4 hours to download the images when
connected directly to the server, and over 8 hours when connected remotely via
the internet. The BRA v. Ionics case was smaller, and took less than an
hour to download.
Importing the images and database can be done in less than a day. That is,
assuming all the images are scanned and the database is completed. At our firm
we scan and begin databasing images when we get them in discovery. From that
point on any attorney can access the documents while preparing for any aspect of
the case. This could include hearings, depositions, and delivery to experts,
research, or any other purpose. If this hasn't been done in advance, you can add
to that day whatever time it takes to get the documents imaged and the database
built.
To import the video depositions into the trial presentation program it takes
about 10 minutes for each hour to 2 hours of testimony. A trial with only a few
witnesses on videotape can take less than an hour. A trial with 70 witnesses on
videotape averaging 6 hours per deposition would require about 70 hours. This is
assuming you have already encoded the video (converted it from the tape to an
electronic image). This process takes the length of the tape to accomplish. An
hour of testimony takes an hour to convert; in our example above we had 420
hours of testimony. This also assumes the electronic media has been synchronized
with the transcript. This process will take a little over the length of the
deposition to complete. There are advances being made in programs that employ
sound recognition algorithms. These programs can accomplish the task in less
than half the time at half the cost, with a guaranteed accuracy of at least 85%.
That means you can anticipate at least one out of seven clips will be wrong.
Even with only a limited number of depositions, this process should be completed
at least two weeks before trial. In our firm we have the depositions encoded
when they are taken. When the video company has the capability of recording the
disk simultaneously this reduces cost and improves the quality. We have the
depositions synchronized when we determine to use the witness in trial.
Let's now assume that all the images, databases, videos, and transcripts are
done in advance, that naming protocols are established and all the data is on an
accessible and portable hard drive. All the downloading has been done and all
that is necessary is to put the data into the program. All you have to do is get
a trial specialist to hook up the drive and put the data into a presentation
program. I guess we should also assume you have had the foresight to contact
your trial specialist to be sure of availability.
A well trained tech can accomplish this in a few minutes.
Then all that needs to be done is QC the document database and images, and QC
the video images and synchronizing product. The length of time this will take
depends on how sure you want to be that when you call for an image in court, it
is the right image.
That only leaves a couple of small tasks for the trial specialist to complete
on the day before trial. S/he will need to arrange for delivery and set up of
the equipment, unless the court has equipment installed. In that case, the tech
will need to make sure that the court's equipment is in working order and
compatible with your equipment. The tech will also need to learn the controls of
the court's equipment, and ensure that all the connections are live. The
attorneys who plan to use the equipment should also familiarize themselves with
the courtroom set up and the operation of any controls they may need to utilize
during trial.
CONCLUSION
The multimedia trial is no longer a thing of the future, it has become so
inculcated into the practice of law that courts are demanding the funding to
build the necessary equipment into the courtrooms. Judges are insisting on the
use of multimedia because it has been proven to save time. If it is not already
part of your trial practice it soon will be.
Like any tool used in any trade or profession, you will need to learn to use
it correctly, and effectively. Multimedia learning is becoming a major field of
study. The information is available to help you learn to make the most of your
courtroom presentation. There is a growing body of Professional Trial
Specialists to guide you through the process.
As legal professionals, attorneys, legal assistants, and litigation support
staff, it is incumbent upon you to give your clients the best legal
representation you can provide. To accomplish this end you must use the most
effective, and cost effective means.
The most effective use of multimedia in trial is the use that allows you to
teach the jury the facts they need to know to reach to a fair and just verdict.
1 Ric Dexter is a trial support technician, who, for more than 25 years,
has helped trial attorneys look good. Last year, he provided technical support
to the team of lawyers who won the case in which the Texas school finance system
was declared unconstitutional. More recently, he was a valuable member of the
trial team that obtained a complete defense verdict for a company accused of
fraud in a case in which the plaintiff sought $60 million. He is currently
employed by Haynes and Boone, LLP. And the firm is damn lucky to have him.
2 J. David Rowe is a trial lawyer formerly associated with Haynes and
Boone, LLP and is currently a partner with DuBois, Bryant, Campbell &
Schwartz, LLP. Mr. Rowe has successfully tried cases for both plaintiffs and
defendants before judges, arbitrators, and juries. His most recent victory came
as lead trial counsel for the trial team that obtained a complete defense
verdict for a company accused of fraud in a case in which the plaintiff sought
$60 million. Mr. Rowe was damn lucky to have Mr. Dexter as part of the trial
team.
3 Law Office Computing: February/March 2005
4 Jupiter Research cited in ClickZ News
5 Multimedia Learning Richard E. Mayer, Cambridge University
Press 2001
6 If the exhibit is large enough--and the Court will allow it--one good
option is to simply hold it up for everyone to see. Effective multimedia doesn't
have to be electronic.
7 The Electronic Media and the Transformation of the LAW, M. Ethan
Kasch, Oxford University Press 1989.
8 Neither the Federal nor Texas Rules of Evidence or Procedure have
adopted provisions specifically to address technology in the courtroom, but some
individual Courts have begun to incorporate such guidelines. See, e.g. Travis
County File No. 121,012 -- Amended Standing Pretrial Scheduling Order for Trial
of Civil Jury Cases Including Use of Electronic Media, and Travis County
E-Courtroom User Agreement.
9 The Visual Display of Quantitative Information Edward R. Tufte,
Graphics Press 1983
10 Id.
11 Clifford Stoll. High-Tech Heretic: Reflections of a Computer
Contrarian. New York: Anchor, 1999/2000. pp. 179-84
12 Edward Tufte. PowerPoint is Evil. Wired Magazine issue 11.9
September 2003
13 Federman, M. (2004, July 23). What is the Meaning of the Medium is
the Message?
14 Multimedia Learning
|
