Courtroom Presentation, Litigation Software : Charles Perez : Trial Presentation Blog

So we've explained the pitfalls and challenges of dealing with video images and what works and why.

Now we're going to tackle audio problems and challenges - a subject particularly near and dear to our audio engineer savant Eric Graf:

Yes, we are called Video Resources, but we "do audio" too. If you have an audio recording that needs to be clarified, we’re just the guys that you ought to bring it to. I’d like to tell you what to expect from us, and what you can do to make sure we can give you the results you want.

When dealing with an audio recording that’s hard to understand, the objective is to understand it. It’s not to make the thing a high- fidelity, professional-sounding recording, and usually that’s not possible anyway. Once we get it to where you can understand the conversation, we stop messing with it.

Often we will not be able to snag every word. 60% comprehensible is considered a big improvement over 10%.

If you read my lengthy tome about video, you no doubt remember my rant about the shenanigans on TV shows like CSI. It goes for audio too. To summarize: Much of the “technology” on those shows is more James Bond than LAPD. Do not judge a “real” clarification job by what you hear on those shows. Because frankly, they’re full of it.

What we CAN usually do is reduce background noise, background talking, foreground talking (sometimes), distortion, muffledness, and general unintelligibility. It really depends on a lot of factors.

Sometimes we can work wonders. Occasionally we can't work anything.

But we do have the tools and the expertise to do as much as can be done. Our microcassette player alone retails for $8000, and we often find that it delivers a huge improvement just because it plays so much better than everybody else's microcassette player.

Sometimes we’ll listen to a recording you’ve submitted and say “sorry, we can’t help you.” We like a good challenge, and we like making money while tackling a good challenge, but we aren’t going to waste your time or resources on a lost cause. Here’s how you can help reduce your chances of your cause being lost:

GET US THE ORIGINAL. PLEASE. WE BEG YOU.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I love my job!

I get to meet attorneys who have to perform “stand up” on a regular basis to an audience whose approval they seek with material that is about as exciting as a wet newspaper.

Tough crowds - boring topics. Yet still they show up for appearance after appearance before a captive group of poorly paid and sometimes angry critics - many of whom are striving to look interested in the schtick  the attorney's hawking.

When I’m consulted to prepare a presentation for a first- time client I begin by stressing that we need to play to the lowest common denominator in our "audience". The facts need to “speak for themselves in short order";  it’s like telling a joke – if you have to explain it, you’ve lost any impact as well as the impression you were striving for.

Good litigators are where they are because they possess the gift of verbal presentation – they are storytellers by necessity.  I create the graphic extension to their story, but I’m careful not to become the story. Their story must “flow” naturally – the graphic must “feel" like it “belongs to the story.”

Our company has the ability to create stunning visuals, flashy titles and mind-boggling animations. Our clients’ eyes beam at the simplest effect – like they’re watching “Star Wars” for the first time.

Luckily, common sense prevails as I reign in the cowboys and we simplify, simplify, simplify the message until we’re left with ”just the facts ma’am.”

Just because we can create it doesn’t mean it’s going to work; by this I mean it’s too easy to overwhelm the message with the medium. You don’t want your audience to be dazzled with the mechanics of the presentation and completely overlook the message.

So, let me offer a few basic pointers for you first-timers dealing with projected images:

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

More times then we'd like to admit we receive a video or audio tape at the Video Resources forensics department that is practically unviewable or unintelligible and we're asked to "clean it up", you know, like they do on the "CSI" television shows.

Unfortunately, since most, if not all of what is seen on "CSI", "Las Vegas" and "Crossing Jordan" is techno-BS we have to inform the customer that we can only do so much - basic laws of physics govern our services rather than imagined, non-existent, special effects.

That's not to say that we can't improve on the evidence, but, alas, we cannot work miracles.

For those cases that we can help with we generally advise on the best method to present the media - possibly a self-amplifed audio system to fill the room with clear sound, for instance.

So it was refreshing to read a post by Judge Christina Habbas of Colorado entitled "Don't Be Tempted To Use Technology Unless It Makes Your Presentation Clear" wherein Judge Habbas advises:

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Presenting your message effectively in court is any litigators ultimate goal whether your presentation is in front of a jury or only in the presence of a judge. With the technology today it is easy to become sidetracked by the medium presenting your message.

My advice to our clients is "Less is More"; although we can provide the audio and visual tools to promote your argument it isn't always necessary to overwhelm the court with a production worthy of MTV.

I was recently reminded of this at a seminar presented by Lorman Education Services entitled "Litigation Skills for Legal Staff". One of the attorneys presenting was Michael A. Geibelson, a partner at the Los Angeles offices of Robins,Kaplan,Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.  

 Attorney Geibelson advised:

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the past few years you couldn't have helped but notice that things are changing in the courtroom. In 1996   the public got a glimpse of a (then) state-of -the-art courtroom presentation of the nationally televised trial of  OJ Simpson.  As I recall the only visuals provided were crime scene photos, a few timeoline graphs and several DNA-related drawings. Laptops were at the disposal of the attorneys and Barry Scheck made the most of an overhead projector.

More and more often in todays court an average jury will be made up of a majority of people who are visual learners. That is, they will want, at a deep psychological level, to have information presented to them visually. The majority of the public are quite comfortable getting their information via a "talking head" or through a demonstrative exhibit. 

Most jury psychologists, including Amy Singer, believe that people learn much more through seeing and hearing rather than from hearing alone.  The use of demonstrative evidence usually grabs the jury's attention and often has them sitting at the edge of their seats when things like models and objects are being shown.

Unfortunately, most litigators are auditory learners who prefer to teach orally.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks