Time was attorneys relied almost exclusively on their verbal skills to sway juries. But as computers, television and video games have seeped into every aspect of everyday life, lawyers are finding that a visual message can be more effective than even the most masterful of silver-tongued arguments. More and more visual tools, ranging from power point presentations to animated videos are entering the courtroom under the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words. “I think the visual presentation is very important from a judge’s perspective,” said Stephen Petersen, a judge in the Van Nuys court. “The judge wants to give the jury the clearest view of the case, so that the jury can understand the evidence, and since visual presentation aids that in large measure, I think almost all judges are in favor of visual presentation.” Civil cases involving such things as product liability can require juries to absorb complex technical information, and visual presentations can aid in understanding. But even simpler cases can benefit from a strong visual aid. “My partner tried a case in which he thought the accident reconstruction done through an animation explaining exactly how the expert felt the accident occurred made the difference,” said John J. Duffy, a partner at Gray, York & Duffy LLP. “It was an animation that told the story that the expert could have verbalized ten times over, and the jurors wouldn’t have gotten it.” With computers now an integral part of everyday life, lawyers are increasingly using technology not just to illustrate their cases in the courtroom, but also to help with providing information to judges pre-trial. Trialgraphix.com, which has been providing graphics and other audio-visual tools for lawyers since 1991, often provides animations that attorneys can submit to judges along with more traditional briefs. “We do a fair amount of tutorials, animations submitted to the judge in patent cases,” said Erica Holborn, president of Trialgraphix which has offices in L.A. “These are things we didn’t do five or six years ago, but because the courts are becoming more paperless and more accustomed to technology, we’re doing things beyond the static graphic.” Trialgraphix provides a range of services including interactive multimedia presentations that allow a litigator to control the sequence of information provided to a jury as the argument progresses. Jury expectations “First, it’s a more interesting presentation,” said Holborn. “Second, jurors expect things to be presented in a higher tech fashion.” As crime shows, cop shows and courtroom shows have become more prevalent on television, jurors often enter the courtroom expecting to be entertained, and they can easily become disappointed when they realize that a trial can be a downright boring affair. “These TV shows dramatically impact the jury pool in that they think that it’s ‘let me entertain you,’ ” said Duffy. “By using visual aids you can make it at least a little more palatable.” Despite the advantages, most say that the use of many of these technologies is still limited. Televisions and VCR’s are still the most popular devices used in courtrooms. And where presentation software is used, it is most often used for document management. “The most effective use is bar coding and scanning documents into a computer,” said David Casselman, a partner with Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson LLP. “So you can click and up they come on the screen. They’re really effective for the jury and make the lawyer look prepared.” A survey by the American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Resource Center last year revealed that only 31 percent of attorneys are using notebook or laptop computers with presentation software. But more attorneys are adopting the technology for imaging, the ABA survey revealed. Use of power point In the most recent survey, 61 percent of attorneys said litigation support software was of high importance for document imaging, compared with 46 percent who rated the feature very important in 2002. Attorneys locally report that they most often use power point presentations and a device called ELMO, which is a computerized version of the overhead projector. In part, the use of these technologies depends upon the case itself and the dollars at stake. “The case has to crawl somewhere above $100,000 for that stuff to make sense,” said Jonathan Arnold, an attorney at Greenberg & Bass. “As the software gets cheaper, I’m sure that will change.” Already, these techniques are becoming more popular in intellectual property cases, particularly as they apply to Hollywood. If a plaintiff is claiming that a film studio stole his or her idea for a movie, for instance, an attorney can show a jury through computerization a direct, side-by-side comparison of the scene with the screenplay. “You can do a scene-by-scene comparison using motion picture comparison software and it brings home the idea to the jury,” said Arnold. Those who spend a lot of time in the courtroom say that they have become more willing to use these techniques as the technology has become more dependable. “Ten years ago, power point was a lot more iffy,” said Richard Hurst, president of Hurst & Associates, a Thousand Oaks consulting firm that provides expert testimony. “I remember going to many meetings where everyone would say, bring overheads as a backup. A lot of times you’d be trying to hook up a laptop to a system and it wouldn’t work.”