Off-topic but priceless, Katrin Park has this modest proposal in the WaPo. My favorite slide from this presentation is the Gettysburg one, copied after the break.
Click on the image for a larger view.
I will confess I have used PowerPoint a good many times, particularly when I needed to convey a lot of detailed information or to present graphs in those cases where a picture really is worth a thousand words. I have been using it less often, though, and lean against using it whenever the question is otherwise close.
I will confess I have used PowerPoint a good many times, particularly when I needed to convey a lot of detailed information or to present graphs in those cases where a picture really is worth a thousand words. I have been using it less often, though, and lean against using it whenever the question is otherwise close.
Prosecutors would be well advised to "lean against using" PP, lest they be accused of misconduct. (People v. Katzenberger (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1260.)
Appellate courts throughout the country are carefully scrutinizing how prosecutors use PP. And defense counsel are seeking to supplement the trial record with evidence that PP was used by prosecutors to oversimplify legal and factual issues.
Sometimes the old fashioned way is the best and safest method for a prosecutor to present his/her case.
I agree with paul. No matter what the courts think, it seems to me that a prosecutor should invest his presentation to the jury with more directness and personality than comes across with power point. This is not the corporate five-year plan we're talking about.
This is the rare occasion where I disagree with Bill. When I was a prosecutor, I frequently used PowerPoint in closing arguments. I found it to be helpful, and in fact on one occasion a defense attorney came up after closing and said how effective he felt the PowerPoint had been. I never used it to display large blocks of text or anything like that. And, I didn't read from the PowerPoint. I used it as a visual aid, essentially I used PowerPoint like lawyers previously used whiteboards and flip-charts. I often used PowerPoint to review the evidence and connect different pieces of evidence together. I had pictures of each piece of physical evidence, such as the crime scene, etc. I used PowerPoint to display those pieces of evidence as I talked about them, which was much easier than having to pile the evidence up on a table and pick it up as I talked. When I prosecuted white collar cases with lots of documents, I would upload the documents to PowerPoint and highlight the important parts. Additionally, I would list an element on PowerPoint and then underneath the element I would list the witnesses and exhibits that proved that element. I would do that with each disputed element. I felt it was an effective way to visually show the jurors that sufficient evidence had been introduced on each and every element. I never had an objection from a defense attorney or complaint from a judge over anything I ever did with PowerPoint. And, from my experience today's young people (many of whom are now serving as jurors) are used to learning visually and with the assistance of technology.
-Zachary
Zachary --
I would probably have a better opinion of Power Point if I knew how to use it, but of course I have no clue. I think I also associate it with corporate rah-rah, which is not a big positive with me.
But then I don't Tweet either. Could be the generational divide. But I'm still good with clay tablets.
I used PowerPoint for the first time in a criminal trial in 2003 and I have never looked back. Now I use it opening and closing. I also use it interactively showing diagrams of crime scenes that are linked to photos of key evidence during my case.
It is a phenomenally useful tool integrating facts from multiple sources for ease of the jury. Like anything else, of course, it's use needs to be carefully considered. When the presentations are designed to assist the jury, as opposed to just being notes for the speaker, I find it can vastly improve the speed at which the jury can understand the crime scene, evidence, and why they should believe your witnesses and not the defense. I find it can help Integrate a discussion of the elements with the evidence. These PowerPoints don't look like the ones at the link. They have photos, elements of crimes and/or logical takes from arguments and evidence.
Personally, I prefer that the appellate court has a copy of the presentation because that way the court of appeal can see what the jury was shown and when I want to abbreviate concepts, the court of appeal can see I refer to the complete instruction on the slide.