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

Huh?

It's called "Pecha Kucha" (pronounced peh-chak-cha) . I discovered this globally-accepted presentation phenomenon in a terrific book entitled "PresentationZen - Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery" by Garr Reynolds.

In the past I've railed on the "Death by Powerpoint" that has unfortunately become the norm in almost all Powerpoint presentations from the classroom to the boardroom to the courtroom.

Pecha Kucha is a simple and challenging practice that I believe will hone your presentation skills and make for a better presentation (and presenter).

In the August 2007 issue of WIRED Magazine this "process" was simplified in an article entitled "Get to the Powerpoint in 20 Slides Then Sit the Hell Down". The concept is almost too simple (which is probably why you've never heard of it):

"pecha-kucha (Japanese for "chatter"), applies a simple set of rules to presentations: exactly 20 slides displayed for 20 seconds each. That's it. Say what you need to say in six minutes and 40 seconds of exquisitely matched words and images and then sit the hell down. The result, in the hands of masters of the form, combines business meeting and poetry slam to transform corporate cliché into surprisingly compelling beat-the-clock performance art. "

So what's this got to do with the courtroom? - Isn't it obvious? Read On!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Albert Einstein stated a principle in 1933 which is often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." Occam's Razor is a similar principle of logic that can be summed up as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." Then there's the principle more people are probably familiar with: the KISS principle ("Keep It Simple, Stupid").

A better philosophy is, "If it's simple and works well, don't complicate it."

The key here is that it has to "work well."

I've been kept pretty busy the past few months (since October of last year!) with a continuous series of court presentations in and around Southern California, some  civil matters, some criminal cases and yet another in Federal Court and haven't given this blog the proper attention it needs.

The overriding message you'll be hearing me preach about for the next several months is how we accomplished success after success by keeping the message simple and to the point no matter how overwhelming the exhibit load.

In the next few "blogs" I'll be playing "catch up" and relating my first hand experiences with the technology and techniques that we've used in each of these presentations as well as  insight as to what worked well and how we "uncomplicated the complicated".

Our performance in court is always a continuing "work in progress" since every case presents its own set of challenges; we've had a 90 day run that tested our mettle in many situations and I've lived to tell about it - stay tuned; I'll try to not disappoint!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I recently had the opportunity to attend a CLVS (Certified Legal Video Specialists) seminar in St. Louis. This is an outstanding group of video professionals who are certified in the correct methodology of preserving a deposition into a video format.

If your firm uses depositions for later presentation in court and you're not utilizing video you're missing a powerful tool that can provide a compelling and psychological advantage to your argument.
If you do use video I'd strongly suggest that you use a certified  video specialist; they follow strict guidelines and are associated with the NCRA (National Court Reporters Association).

In the past few weeks there have been news reports on the sexual harassment lawsuit involving New York Knicks President and Coach Isiah Thomas.

The deposition of Thomas was videotaped and has been replayed in court (as well as the media) several times.
When is the last time you recall a deposition being "READ" over and over on a news program?
For impact on today's jury you need visuals.
Compare the dry, written transcript of his deposition with the visual dynamics of him actually speaking the words on camera.

I think you'll agree with the old saying that "a picture's worth a thousand words"; in this case the picture AND the transcript is a priceless combination - about 12 million dollars worth.

So - why aren't you utilizing this as a  tool in your legal arsenal?
It can't be cost - a Certified Videographer's fees aren't that expensive, so it must be fear of the unknown - and of perceived courtroom catastrophes.
With the right presentation skills and current software you shouldn't be adverse to using new technology.

In the next few blogs I'll review a few of the solutions that can help you overcome any reluctance you might have regarding using 21st century solutions to win your cases.

This week I'll start with YESLAW...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

OK - in the previous blogisode my sidekick and ally in presentations Eric Graf exploded many of the make-believe antics that pass for science on those pop cop "CSI" - type soap operas that have the masses convinced that such visual alchemy truly exists.

One of the culprits that I feel has encouraged the feebs who write the CSI tripe is the DVR, or Digital Video Recorder. I've personally witnessed the growth of these machines over the past 5 or 6 years in the surveillance arena and have marveled at the promises made by the manufacturers that hawk them to their unsuspecting customers with the overt promise of the unit being capable of isolating an incident (and any suspect within the incident) and then enlarge said subjects facial features for police identification.

I've had the sad chore of bursting many a security manager's bubble when I point out the REAL limitations of their 32 camera, state of the art, real-time, internet accessable system. I no longer feel the need to let them rest their head on my shoulder anymore while gently rocking them and saying "There, there, it wasn't your fault".

Because, it is their fault. They should know better.

Here's why - Here's Eric's take on what we'll call "The Digital Myth":

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

O.K. - forget I used the phrase "video ehancement" in the title. The proper (correct) phrase is "video clarification", but, thanks to all the "pop, quasi-realistic, CSI-Miami, CSI-Las Vegas, CSI-Ad Nauseum garbage" on television I figured you'd recognize the term "Enhancement" since that's the misnomer these fact-challenged programs lead you to believe companies (and underfunded police agencies) are capable of doing. (We'll discuss the sub-par "acting" of David Caruso at a later date).

For the next few "blogisodes" I'm turning over the site to my able bodied wing nut right hand man and audio/video engineer extraordinare Eric Graf  (who works with me at Video Resources, Inc. in the Video/Audio Forensics lab) to explain as simply as possible the why's and wherefore's of video and audio clarification and why it's important for you to know what will and, more importantly, what will not work for you. 

Here's Eric's Video Clarification Blog: (Enjoy!)

The following is a list of random factoids about video.  Hopefully there will be pearls of wisdom herein that will help us better serve you when you get some of that all-important footage that needs enhancing (oops! I mean clarification)..  Warning:  I tend to overuse parentheses (but I’m trying to improve).
 
First of all, you know those TV shows like CSI where they take grainy, blurry, little bitty digital video and enhance it until you can read the serial number on the bad guy’s cellphone as he throws it across the pitch-black parking lot? 

 Guess what ?. . . That’s fake.   (GASP!)  (Take a few moments to catch your breath and then continue reading once your vision returns to normal.. I know - it's a shock.)

Those shows are no more a reflection of real CSI science than James Bond is.  The writers who come up with stuff like that just need some convenient way for the good guys to crack the case, so they make up something silly that they think most viewers will buy.  And most viewers do.  Please don’t be one of them. 

Video doesn’t work like that.  We wish it did.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I was preparing to dazzle you with a primer on the use of demonstrative exhibits in your presentation when I discovered an excellent article in the Georgia Injury Lawyer Blog written by  Richard W. Hendrix of the law firm Finch McCranie, LLP in Atlanta, Georgia.

The article is entitled "Closing Arguments: Trial Techniques for Serious Injury Cases" and attorney Hendrix covers a variety of well reasoned points.

But - since my focus is on graphic or visual presentation in the courtroom I was impressed by his paragraph covering the USE DEMONSTRATIVES AND TRIAL EXHIBITS wherin Mr. Hendrix states:

• Print
• 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:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I was reading a great article published by Legal Times back in March 2004 entitled "Beyond the Flip Chart - How To Use The Latest CourtroomTechnology to Wow a Judge or Jury", by Mark David Wegener and Andrew Lazerow.  A particular paragraph early in the article struck me as prophetic as it related to a recent court incident I experienced at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles (the same courthouse used in the background of the TV series "Shark").

The article stated "The effective trial lawyer will continue to rely on the timeless tactics of credibility, emotional appeals, and logic. But in order to effectively persuade a jury, the trial lawyer must deliver the case themes and facts in a way that is consistent with how jurors process information in our high technology age.

Indeed, jurors have come to expect it. Even when the traditional flip chart or white board is large enough for a jury to actually read -in itself a rarity- the old techniques are simply not enough to keep a jury's (or a judge's) attention".

Well, this played right into our clients very own "Perry Mason moment" at the courthouse.

• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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:

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Everybody knows what a PowerPoint presentation is - right? Both of my daughters were taught the basics of presenting in PowerPoint in 6th grade and were required to use it for science and history projects in high school.

The fact is, I'd say it's safe to assume that almost everyone has seen at least one PowerPoint presentation - former Vice-President Al Gore re-emereged into the public consciousness with his award winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth"  which is really only a PowerPoint presentation on film.

Now, let's assume you've become quite comfortable with PowerPoint and it's your first line of presentation in your practice.

So...what's the problem?

• Print
• Comments (4)
• 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:

• Print
• 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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks