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

Due to the nature of our litigation support servces here at Video Resources I've had the opportunity to test out a variety of courtroom presentation software; The two most popular (in constant use) being Adobe Acrobat Professional and Microsoft's PowerPoint.

These two excellent programs embody what I consider the "base" technology for what has developed into today's advanced presentation software like CT Summation, Visionary, Trial Director and Trial Max. The latter named programs have taken the "basics" (again, my interpretation) of these two "core" programs expanding upon their features and delivering the rock 'em, sock 'em, boffo presentations we've all come to love and, (for our clients at least) expect.

As fantastic as each of these advanced presentation programs are they come with a learning curve and, in a couple of cases, a hefty price tag.

So - let's look at the an alternative - something for those firms who don't need to rip through 16,000+ exhibits, photos and videos. (You know who you are).

What about the smaller case that has a few documents, some photos and maybe even a video deposition coupled with a budget that prohibits outsourcing at any cost?  

If you're a small firm (or even a paralegal in a moderate firm) I'm sure you've been exposed to and made use of PowerPoint at some time or another. If you've had the opportuniuty to study any of my previous posts you'll also note that in the wrong hands I firmly beleive that the mis-use (or over use) of elements of this program can be a real crowd snoozer.

So - what to do? Here's a terrific, affordable alternative for novice and PowerPoint sage alike: PowerPoint For Court created by award winning graphic design artist Herb Rubinstein.

 

At just $149.00 PowerPoint for Court isn't a lightweight entry by any means. In Herb Rubinsstein's own words: "Just about everyone is familiar with PowerPoint and it is eminently capable of displaying absolutely anything. So why go out and look for Legal Presentation programs that can cost a lot of money and take hours of valuable time to learn when you already have the perfect software package?

The answer is Don’t!

Using PowerPoint for Court and the software and material found on the Resource CD, you will be on the cutting edge of Courtroom Presentation Technology and will have the winning edge over the opposing side."

Personally, I think this would be $149.00 well spent for any law firm. The whole package comes on one CD and is chock full of useful apps as well as extremely useful advice not only on PowerPoint but also on audio recording, embedding video and courtroom technique.

Herb claims his motivation for creating the program was due to his involvement working with law firms who just didn't grasp the mechanics of PowerPoint or else lacked any expertise (or motivation) in exploiting its true potential.

Check out his web site: www.PowerPointForCourt.com - all the info is there and I'm beginning to sound like an infomercial for the product so I'll let you read up on the particulars for yourself. This is a "must have" for every firm (or at least the poor paralegal tasked with creating the court room presentation).

One final point: I haven't been compensated in any way for this; I enjoy using programs that simplify  the argument with clarity and accuracy and anything that will make your presentation a success is my goal!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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!

Honing your message for your jury is probably the biggest challenge any attorney faces today.

If you feel you're pretty proficient in the use of Powerpoint in the court - you know - you're the "go to guy" (or gal) to put the "slides" together - then this can be an ultimate challenge to your talents.

Me, I can't tell a simple story - seriously. (Don't look so surprised!)

Anyone who works with me or around me will vouch for that statement. My stories or explanations go into deep detail; I'm a lot like listening to a Charles Dickens novel - you know, rich in minutae (or manure... depending on the audience).

I'll never be accused as being at a loss for words, but, I've been bested many a time by an attorney who makes me look like a glib simpleton by comparison - I've been awestruck by the speed at which they've been able to get the eyes of jurors to "glaze over" within seconds of launching into their presentation. That takes practice. It must. Somewhere there has to be an unwritten law that dictates that some attorneys (unintentionally) inflict "Brain Freeze" on a jury in the course of an argument.

Powerpoint in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon - it can bore your brains out of your audience and confuse or lose your message. I've seen it - you've seen it. Heck, it's pretty hard NOT to see it.

Try your presentation out on "Fresh Eyes".

Why not work, creatively - either with others or within your organization - to eliminate this menace? Why continue to use the same tired formula when a fresher, simpler approach may be within reach?

Here's an idea:

The creative forces behind the Pecha Kucha concept spawned Pecha Kucha Night in cities around the world.

Their web site,PechuKucha.org,  offers this explanation for the monthly event:

Pecha Kucha Night, devised by Astrid Klein and Mark Dytham (Klein Dytham architecture), was conceived in 2003 as a place for young designers to meet, network, and show their work in public.

But as we all know, give a mike to a designer (especially an architect) and you’ll be trapped for hours. The key to Pecha Kucha Night is its patented system for avoiding this fate. Each presenter is allowed 20 images, each shown for 20 seconds each – giving 6 minutes 40 seconds of fame before the next presenter is up. This keeps presentations concise, the interest level up, and gives more people the chance to show.

What? No Pecha Kucha Night in your area? 

Why let that stop you from utilizing the simple concept? Hone your skills - streamline your argument - practice with some abstract ideas - practice with your current case.

At the risk of beating an old cliche further into the ground:"Think outside the (blue) box".

Imagine creating a persuasive argument that is easily followed and understood under seven minutes.

What? You can't? Neither can I.   But it's worth a try, isn't it?  What have you got to lose?

Your Case?

• 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... So - what is YesLaw?

To quote from their website: " YesVideo provides a service for converting deposition videotapes onto CD, synchronizing them with the transcript, and delivering them with YesLaw software. This software allows attorneys to easily review deposition footage, find key segments, then create and export clips for use in trial presentation programs like Sanction®. Rather than focus on technology, the focus is on making law firms more successful in their use of video."

OK - well, that pretty much sums it up. I could go on for another few paragraphs but I'd be saying essentially, the same thing.

Used on a PC the program allows the viewer to search for pertinent testimony, locate the corresponding video and audio and then save it into a variety of existing software programs, like Sanction, Livenote, and, of course,  Powerpoint.


In my opinion this is a great way to bring video into your firm; it's not rocket science and they've created a platform that is easily understood by almost everyone. The YesLaw viewer doesn't take any programming skills on the part of your staff - if they can load a CD they can load a synchronized text video deposition.

How do you get your video into the YesLaw format ?
SIMPLE - almost all Certified Legal  Video Specialists have access to the service, just specify it when you set up your next deposition.
If you already have the video and the text in a file format you can go to the YesLaw website and locate an out fit (like Video Resources, Inc.) who will handle the conversion for you.

The conversion fee isn't expensive at all and the overall savings to your firm will outweigh the investment.

• 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.

RESOLUTION - THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM  (well, one of the many problem cruxes)
 
OK - Here's the basic formula for understanding how video images are displayed on your TV screen/monitor: Standard definition video has very specific limits in resolution: 720 pixels wide by 486 pixels high.  Well, actually, it’s more like 243 pixels high in practice, but that’s getting on a technical tangent, so let’s not go there.  Anyway, that’s much lower than even the most inexpensive analog still camera.
 
What that means is, once something in the frame gets smaller than a certain number of pixels, then that’s it. PERIOD. You aren’t going to be able to see what it is.  The best supercomputer in the world can’t take a solid block of color (which is what a pixel is) and figure out what details within the block made the block come out the solid color it did.
 
That’s the main reason most of the CSI TV stuff is bogus.  It ignores the resolution issue.  We can certainly take a video picture and make things on it bigger.  But they won’t be sharper, or easier to see or read, because video resolution "is what it is". 

Bigger will just mean blurrier, and if you get too big, you won’t even be able to tell what you’re looking at anymore.  Things that are too small just can’t be sharpened or enhanced from a video source.

You know MORE that the writers at CSI!

COPIES AND WHY WE HATE 'EM 
 
Analog video degrades every time you copy it....  A lot.  Often enough so that whatever we’re supposed to be seeing can’t be seen anymore. (Digital Video, when copied correctly, doesn't degrade at all.)
 
Now, we all know that most VHS-based surveillance equipment is poorly maintained and the tapes are reused until they get holes worn in the tape.  It can often be difficult to get the fool things to play back properly.
 
Here’s the deal:  Here at VR, we’re GOOD at getting the fool things to play back properly.  In fact, we have a warehouse full of equipment to do just that.  I can’t tell you how many times we’ve received tapes that wouldn’t play in any VCR in the building except for ONE.  (There’s this one beat up old Philips deck that I’ve rescued from imminent dumpsterization three times here at VR, and now guard with my life.  It’s ugly, dirty, a little sticky, and not of much general use, but it does an amazing job with certain multiplex timelapse tapes.)
 
In extreme cases, we’ve been known to go inside one of our decks and deliberately misadjust it to match a particularly screwy tape.
 
But if you give us a copy, then we’re stuck with whatever happened playback-wise when the copy was made.  Did the copyist forget to set the tracking?  Was there a problem with the signal level going from one machine to another?  Did they run it at the wrong speed and accidentally cut off 2/3 of the content?  We’ve seen all these things, and we can’t fix them if they’re “burned in” (ie, recorded) into the copy.  And even if they did get everything exactly right, it’s still a copy, with degraded quality.
 
And oh yes, on the topic of multiplexed tapes . . . you know, the ones that record lots of full-screen cameras really fast so that they show in a jumbled flicker?  Please don’t have anyone demultiplex them for us.  Reread the part on “copies” and you’ll see why.
 
What’s that?  You say you’re going to copy your tape onto a DVD?  Just as bad, I’m afraid.  Possibly even worse!
Catch my next post and I'll tell you why........

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks