by Kent Jennings Brockwell
Staff Writer
In a world filled with BlackBerry communication devices and laptop computers, it is no surprise that judges have begun to welcome more and more electronic devices into the courtroom. But with video conferencing and computerized slideshow presentations being used on a daily basis in courtrooms, how is technology changing the legal process?
Circuit Court Judge Michael Weatherby said he has seen an increase of computerized presentations in recent years and expects to see more use of them in the future.
“PowerPoint presentations can be very effective when the attorneys are giving their arguments,” Weatherby said. “They work great assuming the attorney and their assistants know what they are doing.
“I think computer software generated presentations will be used more and more in the courtroom. It is a very good way of replacing diagrams or cardboard blowups, which are big and bulky. It can be a very effective tool.”
Currently, Weatherby said he sees computer presentations used mainly during closing arguments in a trial but imagines that attorneys will begin using them more frequently throughout their trials.
Judge Timothy Corrigan said he also likes to see the use of computerized presentations, only as long as they make sense and are not redundant.
“Make sure it makes sense to the judge,” he said, “in terms of what presentation you want to make to the judge.”
Corrigan said many times a lawyer will use an electronic presentation that hasn’t been edited closely enough and they will end up fumbling through the presentation to find a certain slide that was errantly placed.
Judge Jean Johnson said computerized presentations and the like can be very effective in court, but not if the attorney doesn’t know how to operate the projector.
“If you are going to use any audio visual equipment, make sure you know how to use it before you bring it into court,” Johnson said.
She said it is distracting to the jury and the judge if an attorney has to fumble with the projector or the computer because they are not familiar with the equipment.
To prevent technology snafus in his court, Corrigan said he allows attorneys to make appointments to come into the room prior to their trials to test out their presentations and any equipment they will be using.
Besides PowerPoint presentations, there are several other technological advances that are changing the presentation of a trial, including a system that deters jury members from hearing private conversations between the judge and the attorneys.
Corrigan said the federal courthouse in Jacksonville has a noise system set up to keep the jury from hearing private sidebar meetings at the bench between the attorneys and the judge. When a sidebar is called, Corrigan said loudspeakers near the jury box begin playing “white noise,” or static, so the jury members can’t hear what is being said.
“This was an effort to make a noise barrier between the judge and the jury,” he said, “but people still tend to whisper when they are at sidebar. I am sure it helps but I don’t know how much better than the old system.”
Live video conferencing via the Internet is another new technology that is becoming more popular in the courtroom. While videotaped depositions have been used in court for some time now, live video conferencing can allow an attorney to question a witness who is hundreds of miles away without having to bring them into the courtroom.
While the current courthouse has limited access to a video conferencing system, some people that have seen it used say it can be very helpful.
Weatherby said he oversaw a case where live video conferencing was used because the witness had to remain in a completely sterile hospital environment. Johnson said she is thinking about using video conferencing for a case where a important witness is in another country and can’t travel to the United States.
Johnson said she could see video conferencing become a commonly used tool as courtrooms across the country become more technologically savvy. She said video conferencing could potentially shorten trials and cut costs for both the court and the witnesses, who usually have to take time off from work to appear in court.
“I can see it being used more often but I don’t think many attorneys are aware of it,” she said.
Johnson said she can see a lot of potential live video conferencing use regarding medical malpractice cases, where the court often has to work around doctors’ typically hectic schedules. She said time and money could be saved if attorneys could question doctors from the courtroom while the doctor was in his office.