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
© 2024 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 AllRhyme and Reason: The Legal and Ethical Challenges of Using Rap Lyrics as Evidence
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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