Your Courtroom Presentation - Sending The "Clearest Message"
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:
"Beware of playing tape recordings for a jury. Criminal cases often include audio- or video-taped interviews. Many times, these recordings are not clear – either because of the quality of sound, the presence of static or interference, or even the size of the courtroom making listening difficult. I am watching a capable prosecutor try to punctuate his Closing Argument in a Sexual Assault on a Child case by playing portions of the Defendant’s audio-taped statement, using his own words against him. My courtroom is a large cave – sound is often muffled and unintelligible. The prosecutor is frustrated in his playing of the tape, although he has taken great care to transfer the portions of the statement to his computer. Unfortunately, the speakers, the corruption of the sound recording, and the size of the courtroom have made it impossible for the jury to hear clearly, thus having little impact. Perhaps the prosecutor should have simply read a transcript of the Defendant’s words to the jury to illustrate his point.Contrast this with the very end of a Closing Argument in another Assault case a few weeks ago: there, one of the victims was video-taped during her review of a photo array of potential suspects. As she looked at each photograph, she took her time, and placed each photo on the desk when she did not recognize the person. That is, until she saw the Defendant’s photograph. Her reaction was immediate and extreme. The prosecutor ended her Closing Argument by replaying only those last seconds of the video – without comment. The strength of that presentation left a major impact on the jury.
Moral: Don’t be tempted to use technology – ANY technology -- unless it makes your presentation clear."
At the Video Resources Litigation Assistance Division we've witnessed the same response countless times with sychchronized text with video testimony - you can't capture the body language, the voice inflections or the facial expressions by "reading to your audience".
There's no substitute for actually letting them hear or see the testimony firsthand.
But please, do it right!
