Substantive Evidence and Demonstratives: Basics of Visual Impact
The most powerful proof you can provide at trial is visual. Using great graphics and imagery is a key to good advocacy. Using them as early as possible in the case is even better.
October 02, 2017 at 11:23 AM
9 minute read
Because we learn approximately 80 percent from what we see and merely 15 percent from what we hear, the most powerful proof you can provide at trial is visual. Using great graphics and imagery is a key to good advocacy. Using them as early as possible in the case is even better. Best of all, use visual evidence and substantive evidence (testimony, deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, etc.) and other proofs in combination: you will capture the jury's interest, present a more powerful and persuasive case, and keep the jury engaged because you are appealing to the jury's senses.
Not all that is visual is demonstrative. “Demonstrative evidence” is a bad catch-all name for anything other than witness testimony and documents. Not all visual evidence is demonstrative. Although we colloquially use the phrase “demonstrative evidence” to refer to visual information, many exhibits such as maps, photographs, document enlargements are substantive evidence. True demonstrative evidence, such as a computer simulation or artist's rendering, are not direct evidence, but are created for trial in order to explain a concept to the trier of fact. By contrast, a photograph of the site, an enlargement of a document, or a chart showing increasing or decreasing sales are substantive evidence, not demonstrative. So long as the exhibit fairly and accurately represents reality, substantive evidence can and should be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted (assuming it is otherwise not objectionable and a proper foundation has been laid). Because it is easy to confuse the concepts of visual substantive evidence with demonstrative evidence, avoid where possible the phrase “demonstrative evidence.” (Using the phrase demonstrative evidence essentially admits that the proffered evidence may be inadmissible.)
To put a further point on the issue, the trial court may admit true demonstrative exhibits (created for demonstrative purposes) and may even permit the jury to take demonstrative “evidence”—such as anatomical models—into the jury room for deliberations. (The more common practice is that demonstrative evidence will be marked for identification but not permitted into the jury room.) How demonstrative exhibits are handled is largely up to the trial court's discretion. If the trial court perceives that the visual evidence is biased, misleading or incomplete and may mislead or prejudice the jury, the court may in its discretion exclude that exhibit from being presented to the jury. Lay a foundation if you really want the jury to consider that demonstrative. (Alternatively, if you want to keep that demonstrative away from the jury, attack the foundation in the hope of making the trial court pause.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘The Decision Will Help Others’: NJ Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Div. in OPRA Claim Over Body-Worn Camera Footage
5 minute readRhyme and Reason: The Legal and Ethical Challenges of Using Rap Lyrics as Evidence
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250