Skip to main content

Civil trials and the CSI effect.


The CSI effect refers to the forensic television drama, which currently enthralls throngs of people. The perceived problem with the CSI effect is that the viewing public considers these shows as fact. This is a particular problem when you are dealing with a criminal trial and your jury is composed of that viewing public. If you do a quick Google search, you will see the web is filled with articles, white papers and blogs touching on this very subject. In fact, it has become such a problem that potential jurors find themselves, during voir dire, questioned whether they are viewers of shows such as CSI.

I have been following the concepts behind the CSI effect for quite some time now. Not scientifically but rather from a mundane perspective. I must admit before I go any further that I personally only have ever seen CSI perhaps once. This could be related to the old adage of not bringing your work home with you. It could also have something to do with the two toddlers running around in my house. Unfortunately, I still have to deal with Elmo and I do not mean a visual presenter.

This phenomenon of questioning forensic evidence during a real trial is fascinating to me. Just to illustrate how popular a show like CSI is to date there is over 500 episodes. These have been shown in 200 countries with a combined audience of 2 billion people. Crime TV is popular and audiences love the whiz-bang technology that is used. This I believe completely makes the transition to civil matters, which are the bulk of any trial consultant’s time. Jurors expect technology to be present in trial no matter what the case background.

Still to this day I speak with case teams who are concerned with being to flashy or overwhelming the jury with images on a screen. I could understand this concern back in 1990s when things were still relatively new. However looking ahead at 2010 our jurors are very different. Young and old they are using social media, wireless devices and a good percentage of them are under the influence of the CSI effect. Our society is inundated with visual learners who retain more when they both see and hear it. Nothing bolsters the ability to reach that goal more then convincing presentation technology.

Just think jurors are actually questioning forensic evidence techniques during criminal trials. This could be the collection of evidence to the technology used to interpret it. All based on a fictional television show, a visual media source. Now imagine a civil matter where a presentation includes no technology. You have a case team using flip charts, reading documents the jury cannot see, or worse a foam blowup of some complicated issue. Sure all those tactile demonstratives have their uses and can be very powerful. Nevertheless, I would argue they are slowly becoming very limited as our tech savvy jury rolls their eyes at them.


It is very hard to focus attention on what many younger jurors consider archaic presentation techniques. I once was involved in a trial where at completion the judge allowed counsel to interview willing jurors. One of the panel was a schoolteacher for a third grade class. Opposing counsel used no technology during the trial whatsoever. The teacher explained to counsel that she thought his presentation was very difficult to follow. However, most compelling of all was her comment that she uses PowerPoint to help teach her third graders. To flashy? Overwhelming? Not according to a class of eight year olds. Those third graders in the blink of an eye will be our jurors of tomorrow.

Reference

CSI effect. (2009, October 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI_effect&oldid=321152810

CSI (franchise). (2009, November 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSI_(franchise)&oldid=328697898

Popular posts from this blog

Analogies and the courtroom.

"One good analogy is worth three hours discussion." - Dudley Field Malone Over the years I have seen so many complicated concepts vanish into the nether void of the courtroom. Moreover uncomplicated concepts or facts which became bogged down in lawyer speak. One of my jobs as a trial consultant is to assist with breaking down these concepts and facts. The end result is to use visual communication as a tool to help a jury absorb and understand this information.  One of the biggest tools in assisting with this goal is a good analogy. An analogy is defined as non-identical comparisons between two things, with a resulting similar explanatory effect. The best case teams I have worked with over the years have mastered the use of analogy in their presentations. This has been a constant tool and point of interest in my professional career. One of the first things I do when I join a trial team is read all the expert reports. This gives me an instant foundation of the case to...
Read more

Video Deposition Tips.

The witness is a doctor who had surgery duties today and he or she is exhausted. Opposing counsel prepped them while you waited in the lobby with the court reporter for what seemed like an eternity. Finally, the videographer walks out to the lobby to verify the equipment is setup and the prep session is over. You sit patiently and wonder if the sound of your stomach rumbling with hunger pains will be captured by the microphone. What else could go wrong? Unfortunately, in a video deposition much more. My big break in the litigation support industry was about 15 years ago. I took what I thought was a summer job as a legal videographer. Little did I know what was about to happen in terms of my career path. I only lay that foundation because even now so many years later little has changed with video depositions. OK, sure now we have better technology but the basic underlying mistakes made are the same. So I just thought I would share a few tips and observations here on my blog. There a...
Read more

Technology and the Chewbacca defense.

Over the years, I have been asked by several case teams about the dangers of using tech in the courtroom. Most of these inquiries were founded in the belief that technology may be too slick. Or perhaps the jury may infer the client has a tremendous amount of resources to spend on the case. Of course, ten years ago those were valid concerns, but not in our current age of increasingly tech savvy jurors. However, there are also still many pockets of resistance amongst the general populace. Therefore, we must consider the ramifications of letting the technology overwhelm the audience. Interestingly enough, I am not referring to the technology you may use in your own presentation. Instead, those tools which are employed by your adversary. In my experience, there has been a very subtle increase in the use of technology to confuse the jury. The presentation could be an overcomplicated graph, animation, or demonstrative of some type. These examples are almost always supported by the tech/la...
Read more