By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
It qualifies as a best practice: If you can make it visual, then you should make it visual. When presenting to a jury or a judge, the goal of developing trial graphics to supplement your message should be driven, not by necessity, but by opportunity. The question isn’t whether you need an image for them to understand the point, but whether you could use one. That’s the standard because research consistently shows the advantages of engaging an audience with both words and pictures.
That simple imperative to make it visual, however, is sometimes frustrated or undone by the ways those visuals are created. Whether it is caused by inexperience, by a failure to simplify content before trying to represent it, or by the “too many cooks” problem of a large trial team, the graphics created for trials and hearings are sometimes over-complicated, or weighed down by elements that make the images harder for a lay audience to process. As I’ve written recently cognitive difficulty of any form often results in reduced credibility for the point being made. In the case of trial graphics, complexity can also make it harder to get the demonstrative approved for use. So the maxim of “make it visual” also needs to be leavened by the addendum “but keep it easy to process.” For this post, I will highlight six main pitfalls that can make for a visual distraction rather than a visual aid.
1. Too Many Purposes
When someone who knows a case very well starts to design images, the impulse to add is sometimes hard to resist. If we add a timeline to this financial chart, we cannot just show what payments were made, but when as well. Sure, but the more you add to it, the harder it will be to process. A good rule of thumb is that each graphic should have one purpose. If you have a different point you also want to make, then give some thought to creating a different graphic.
2. Too Many Words
I have seen more than a couple of attorneys go crazy with the labels, and more often than not, if they give you a timeline, then every one of the labels for the timeline entries will need to be shortened. Attorneys need to remember that a good demonstrative exhibit is not meant to stand on its own or to be a complete record of the issue under discussion. It is meant to supplement the explanations of an attorney and/or a witness. If there is nothing for a person to add, explain, or connect, then the exhibit has too many words.
3. Too Little Contrast
What makes a label easy to read is contrast. Text on a background needs to “pop” or be easily separated by the eyes. Using light text on a dark background is often preferred, and you might notice that is what road sign designers do to make it easier and quicker for drivers to read the signs. Keeping the background dark also helps when you don’t know how bright the screen or projector in the courtroom will be.
4. Too Small a Font or Scale
A good rule for a PowerPoint presentation is not to use anything under a 20 point font. But it may also vary based on conditions, and how large and how distant the screen will be. The idea that it should take no effort to discern content applies to diagrams and maps as well: Anything you want your factfinders to see and to process should take no real effort at all to discern. You want them to be looking and grasping immediately, not having to concentrate or study it.
5. Too Much Argument Avoidance
This is a tough one because demonstrative exhibits should not be “argumentative” and can be bounced from your opening statement if they strike the judge that way. I have noticed, however, that some lawyers take that prohibition to an extreme, avoiding not just argument but also a clear point. The goal of an opening is to preview the case, so the point you will be making (with evidence once it comes in) should be clear. One way to do that is to use a title that is declarative and not just descriptive. In other words, not “Timeline of Events” but “SmithCo had Plenty of Warnings.” If that goes too far for your judge, then just remove the “argument” by making it a question, with an answer made evident by the graphic: “Did SmithCo Have Notice?”
6. Elements that Aren’t Substance
You do want your graphics to be designed well, but you also want to avoid any elements that speak to “artful creation” rather than to “relevant information.” Your audience wants you to get to the point. This is the reason to avoid the animated builds on your PowerPoint slides, but it applies to all elements of the design process. Look at it critically, as your judge or jurors will, and eliminate anything that ornaments more than it clarifies.
There are, of course, many other principles to good design, and litigators are generally better off trusting the design to a team of graphic specialists. But the concepts as well as the executions should be guided by the goals of visualizing where you can while also keeping it substantive, simple, and non-distracting.
Other Posts on Courtroom Visuals:
- Gruesome Injury Photos: Consider the Halo of High Impact Evidence
- Make Your Slides Less Texty: Six Tips
- Bring Your Jury to the Scene, Virtually