Courtroom Technology in the District of Minnesota

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has evidence presentation systems installed in nine of its courtrooms. Its courtroom technology guide posted here, provides a good account of how courtrooms can be set up to facilitate electronic presentations for trials.

Keep in mind these points when preparing presentations for trials taking place in the District of Minnesota, or elsewhere. Courts that have taken the time to think carefully about electronic presentations will follow the lead of the District of Minnesota.

1. The Court's information services department will provide training upon request.

2. A control panel for the audio/visual system, and a document camera (or ELMO) will be stored on an evidence presentation or Nomad cart that can be moved around the courtroom if necessary.

3. The Nomad cart should have video and audio cables. The District of Minnesota uses a VGA cable and a 3.5 mm male to male stereo audio cable. You will need to determine if your laptop needs converters for these cables.

4. The control panel is used to switch between a laptop, a VCR, a DVD player, a cassette player, or the document camera. It can also be used to adjust the volume of the audio system and modify the settings on the ELMO.

5. The ELMO should have a 'freeze' button, which will allow the image shown on the courtroom monitors to be fixed, while the next hard copy document is positioned for display.

6. Look to see if the ELMO has a preview screen which will indicate how the image will look when presented to the jury.

7. Some ELMOs use a laser to assist with the centering of a document.

8. The presentation cart, the judge, and the witness stand will have annotation monitors which allow for lines, drawings, words, or other marks to be made on displayed documents or other images with a fingertip. In the District of Minnesota, the annotation color is changed by tapping on the upper left; annotations are cleared by tapping on the lower left; and annotations are undone by tapping on the upper right.

9. The podium contains a smaller version of the control panel which has the same functionality.

10. Portable microphones are available.

11. The audio system can use white noise to ensure the confidentiality of side bar conversations.

12. A laptop's display settings may have to be adjusted for the courtroom monitors. The District of Minnesota uses 1024 X 768 pixels with a minimum 60 Hz refresh rate.

The CSI Effect

Anyone who has spent some time around courts in recent years, is likely to have heard attorneys, judges, and even jurors refer to the, 'The CSI Effect'. Dramas which focus on forensic investigation in criminal cases have led to there being a large number of people in jury pools who expect to presented with extensive forensic evidence. This in turn raises the standard of proof for public prosecutors. Circumstantial evidence may not be given as much importance as its should. The CSI Effect can also lead to higher expectations for forensic techniques.

A study has been conducted on the CSI Effect by a police officer with a bachelor's degree in Justice Studies. John Alldrege, The "CSI Effect" and Its Potential Impact on Juror Decisions, 3 Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science 6 (2015), available at http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/themis/vol3/iss1/6 . Alldredge notes that visual presentations on forensic evidence can help correct misleading impressions about its value, and points out attorneys may try to weed out jurors influenced by television dramas centered around forensic evidence during voir dire. Attorneys are also more likely to request unnecessary crime lab tests.

Allredge cites a study that jurors who watch a lot of television are less likely to reach a guilty verdict in criminal cases. R.M. Hayes-Smith, L.M. Levett, Jury’s still out: How television and crime show viewing influences jurors’ evaluations of evidence, 7(1) Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice 29-46 (2011). Generally, the CSI Effect leads to a pro-defense bias. The same study also conducted a survey which indicated that most jurors had no knowledge of the CSI Effect, but those that did would make sure that they were not influenced by it.

Another study found that people who frequently watch television drams where the use of forensic evidence is showcased place less probative value on circumstantial evidence. Y.S. Kim, G. Barak, & D.E. Shelton, D.E., Examining the“CSI-effect” in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses. 37(5) Journal of Criminal Justice 452 (2009).

Multimedia presentations may help educate jurors who are 'visual learners' that forensic evidence is not infallible.

Cornell Survey of Juror Thoughts on Trial Technology

Two years ago, the Cornell Law Review published the results of a survey of more than 500 jurors who served at federal trials. Hon. Amy J. St. Eve & Gretchen Scavo, What Do Juries Really Think: Practical Guidance for Trial Lawyers, 103 Cornell L. Rev. Online 149 (2018). The authors of the study are a judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a former Winston & Strawn LLP partner. The article discusses jurors' thoughts about lawyers' use of technology and the presentation of evidence that paralegals help prepare. Here are some key points:

1. Jurors prefer that attorneys use technology to present evidence.

2. Jurors appreciate the use of timelines. They want evidence to presented chronologically.

3. The main issue the surveyed jurors focused on was "attorney organization, preparation, and efficiency". Id. at 155.

4. Jurors frequently complained that they were not able to hear the attorneys. The authors recommend testing the acoustics of the courtroom before the trial begins.

5. "Many jurors are accustomed to learning through technology, and technologically enhanced presentations present an ideal platform to summarize and connect the dots between the evidence presented at trial and the applicable law in a way that is especially useful for visual learners." Id. at 169-70.

6. Jurors have a preference for evidence that is displayed visually on screens.

7. Jurors will be critical if attorneys cannot use technology effectively. They complained when attorneys did not learn how to use hardware beforehand.

8. Every trial tech who has been in the hot seat will appreciate that the authors admonish lawyers to, "take the time to learn about and practice with the courtroom's technology so that the trial is not a dress rehearsal." Id. at *170.

9. Jurors prefer that deposition designations not be made for long excerpts of testimony.

10. Focus on the relevance of exhibits and do waste time discussing unimportant details.

11. Give the jury sufficient time to read exhibits that are displayed to them.

The article also points out that jurors "despise--and are even insulted" when attorneys excessively repeat questions or basic concepts. Id. at 153. They also do not like it when attorneys are hostile to each other, or when they attack witnesses.

The article ends with this conclusion: "Effective use of technology helps, as does organizing evidence into a cohesive timeline or other easy to-follow summary." Id. at 174.