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.

Trial Director Problems on Windows 10

You may experience problems attempting a reinstall of Trial Director 6 on Windows 10. Today, when attempting to do so, Trial Director simply failed to launch for me - the welcome screen flashed for a split second, and there was no further error message. The other applications in the Trial Director suite, including TimeCoder, would also not open.

I contacted tech support at IPro (are these the same fine people who worked at inData?) and they were able to send me a new download file that successfully installed an update that launched without any problems on my new Windows 10 operating system. See the posting about this issue on the IPro forum. Note that the automated directory on for IPro tech support ((877) 324-4776) doesn't seem to mention Trial Director, but press something and they should be ready for you.

Rules for the Redaction of Trial Transcripts

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set down specific guidelines for the redaction of trial transcripts. The following information must be redacted from a transcript:

1. Social security numbers (the last four digits can be left unredacted).

2. Birth dates (the year can be left unredacted).

3. The names of minor children (initials can be used).

4. Financial account numbers (the last four digits can be left unredacted).

See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). The parties have 7 days from the filing of the notice of the filing of the official transcript to file a notice to request the redaction of these four types of information from the transcript. A copy of the notice must be served on the reporter. See the example posted on the site of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A statement indicating what is to be redacted must be filed 21 days after this notice. Guidelines posted to the sites of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and United States District Court for the District of Colorado indicate that statements should contain references in this form:

Social Security Number 123-45-6789 on page 12, line 9 should be redacted to read xxx-xx-6789.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has posted a form on its site which breaks the information down in a chart:

If the parties wish to redact any other information, they must file a motion to do so within the same 21 day period. After an order has been issued for further redactions, the reporter then performs the redactions by the date stated in the order. The redacted version of the transcript (or the original if no redactions are performed) is released on PACER after 90 days. Only attorneys who pay for transcripts, and court users can have access to the transcript before this 90-day period is up, unless the public terminal at the courthouse is used to view the transcript.

Some courts restrict access to the transcript of the voir dire proceeding in order to avoid the need to request the redaction of the personal information of jurors.