Can Power Point Prejudice Juries?

expriest writes "Recently, Slashdot considered the issue of e-courts which allow electronic filing of documents and court proceedings to be viewed on flat screens. Some commentators, however, are now questioning the effect of more commonplace technology on the courtroom, Power Point." Below, a bit on the reasoning behind their objections to electronic showmanship in the courtroom.

expriest continues "Theoretically, all trials feature two equally zealous advocates who each forcefully advocate for their clients. The idea is that by giving each litigant a powerful and equally persuasive advocate as their attorney, they will cancel each other out and the truth will be left in the shakeup. But what happens when one attorney uses technology to gain an unfair advantage?

Already one court, the Court of Appeals of Washington, held in State v. Robinson that the prosecution should not have been allowed to use Power Point in their closing argument, for fear that the jury would be move convinced by fancy graphics than by actual evidence.

Trial graphics companies are already a boom industry, with businesses like Trial Image making millions off of lawyers struggling to reduce their case to a picture. The question is, how far should this go? Does even simple technology like Power Point reduce trials to a contest of presentation, not a contest of facts and law?"

Comments

Rediculous

[Skalizar]

A slick oration, a slick computer presentation, its all the same thing. Lawyers have been using printed versions of the same thing for years without it coming under question, how is it different just because its displayed electronically? Because they can use animated wipes?

Powerpoint vs. intimidating lawyers...

[jhdevos]

Powerpoint can be a very useful tool in presenting something, and probably also for presenting a side in a legal dispute. However, there are good and bad powerpoint presentations. The good kind presents information, while the bad kind only pretends to show information - what it really contains is a lot of emotional intimidation.

I've seen a lot of powerpoint presentations in my life, and generally, I can discern the good ones from the bad ones. Within my own field of expertise, of course.

When I think of a court, I think of two lawyers, who are both being paid to believe and defend one side of a difference in oppinion. Both of them know much more than me about law, and are trained in talking just so people believe them. I don't know how lawyers speak, because I don't know many lawyers, and don't spend much time in a courtroom. I don't know the tricks they use, so I would probably have a much harder time discerning a 'good' defence from a 'bad' one.

Personally, I'd be more affraid of the lawyer, then of his presentation technique.

-jdv