Ten Tips to Make Your Zoom Trial a Success
Virtual bench trials could become part of the "new normal," as they offer a practical tool for courts to convene parties, their attorneys and witnesses who are geographically dispersed or otherwise unable to travel.
July 02, 2020 at 12:00 PM
8 minute read
Unlike many states which largely put non-emergent proceedings on pause when the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the U.S., New Jersey has forged ahead, quickly making provisions for remote depositions and court proceedings, even bench trials. And our courts appear well-equipped to handle this new challenge.
The idea of conducting a trial via Zoom is likely intimidating for the most seasoned trial attorney. But as attorneys that handled the defense in a recent Zoom trial in the Passaic County Chancery Division, we're here to tell you that there's nothing to fear. Although it was certainly a different feel than being in the courtroom, our trial—which took place over five days and required testimony from 12 witnesses (testifying from four different states) and the introduction of voluminous documentary evidence—went quite smoothly. While we await the ruling on the merits, the judgment is in that Zoom bench trials can work quite well. To share the benefit of our experience of participating in one of the first, if not the first, Zoom trials in New Jersey, we provide our top 10 tips below to make sure you put on the best case possible during a remote trial:
- Preparation is key with any trial, but even more so for one taking place remotely. Exhibits need to be pre-marked, on the computer, and readily accessible to be shared via the "share screen" function with the court, counsel and witnesses. And when screen sharing, take a second to verify you're sharing the correct screen before hitting share—you don't want your trial notes being broadcast for all to see. Practice sharing your screen multiple times within your office before trial so you are comfortable and proficient at trial.
- In addition to any preparation on testimony, witnesses need to be prepared on the technology, or have someone with them to assist them with it. Even with preparation, some technical glitches are to be expected, and the court will understand. To minimize the disruption, someone on the trial team should be familiar enough with Zoom and any other technology issues that could arise to provide any quick remote support needed—such as how to unmute, fix an inadvertent screen share, or check to ensure that the witness' volume is on. Staying in frequent communication with upcoming witnesses regarding trial progression is essential so they are near their computer and available to log into Zoom at the appropriate time for their testimony.
- If witnesses will be shown exhibits, make sure they develop a comfort level with viewing documents on a screen (a larger screen, like a laptop or an iPad, is preferable to a cell phone if they have access to one). Unlike a courtroom setting where a witness has the ability to handle and flip through a document, someone else will have control over what portion of the document is in view. Witnesses must be empowered ahead of time to insist that the examining attorney follow the witnesses' requests to scroll the document as is necessary to familiarize with its contents before responding to a question, especially if the question is about what the document reflects or contains.
- Zoom makes it especially important that only one person speak at a time, as the software generally only makes one person fully audible, leaving the potential for a messy transcript. That limitation may also require needing to repeat objections so you are not steamrolled over. Use of speaker view (which makes the screen of the speaker larger) rather than gallery view (which displays a grid of all participants in equal size, whether speaking or not) makes it easy to see whose voice is carrying and being recorded on the record.
- Keeping an eye on the video of the judge and opposing counsel is also important—in case someone is trying to speak but is inadvertently muted. Or in case the judge or counsel disconnected.
- Creating a trial exhibit list using Microsoft Excel with embedded links to exhibits is helpful for pulling exhibits quickly. That is especially true when an adversary displays only part of an exhibit, so you can quickly scan through the whole document. But if you're only using a few exhibits for a witness, having them all already open in Adobe makes things go more smoothly. Using a touch screen for the screen share also helps with easily zooming into exhibits or highlighting on the fly.
- With all the programs you will need to have open on the computer—Zoom, exhibits, notes and testimony outlines, and possibly a messaging app to pass notes to co-counsel if not in the same location—having a second (or third) monitor is invaluable. Any other programs not in use, and especially your email, should be closed to prevent distractions and alert sounds.
- Take into account the positioning of the camera. Putting the trial outline directly under the camera but above the Zoom video makes it look like you are talking at the witness while allowing you to keep an eye on the Judge and witness. Also, practice with your witnesses their appearance on Zoom. In a Zoom trial, a witness' face appears much closer and facial expressions and eye movement are highlighted. For example, a witness who regularly looks away from the camera could give the impression that he or she is referencing notes or otherwise searching somewhere for answers.
- Taking advantage of the mute and video off function is a good idea when not actively participating to limit interruption from ambient sounds, and especially during breaks. Remember to instruct your witnesses and clients on that, so side commentary doesn't inadvertently make its way into the official record.
- Professionalism still counts. Dress and act as if you are actually in the courtroom and instruct your clients to do the same. Make sure the room behind you is clean and organized, and do your best to eliminate interruptions by pets or children.
While following these tips won't guarantee a perfect trial or a ruling in your favor, they will help to prevent the remote nature of the trial from creating a barrier to success. We felt no difference between the case we were able to put on via Zoom as compared to what we would have been able to accomplish in the courtroom. You should view a remote trial as an effective way to move your case forward to conclusion amid the ongoing pandemic.
That said, we have our doubts that the same would be true for a jury trial. We were always able to view the judge, the witness, and opposing counsel, and the attorneys and judge were able to speak up if they had trouble hearing something or if other issues arose. A juror would be unlikely to interrupt if they missed testimony; there would be no way to keep an eye on 12 jurors while presenting testimony; and while we trust most jurors would take their civic duties seriously, it would be difficult to determine if jurors were not giving their full attention to the trial. From counsel's perspective, the persuasive impact of opening and closing statements may be lost on jurors observing through a screen, and not to mention the difficulty of having side bar conversations outside the presence of the entire jury.
As New Jersey courts approach the gradual phases of reopening, we anticipate that some virtual-based proceedings may outlast the pandemic. Virtual bench trials could become part of the "new normal," as they offer a practical tool for courts to convene parties, their attorneys and witnesses who are geographically dispersed or otherwise unable to travel due to health, financial or scheduling concerns. At the least, we think courts will be less hesitant to grant requests to permit witnesses to testify via remote technology. Our unique experience has proven that we can continue to service even the most critical aspect of our clients' cases in a virtual setting.
Sean Mack is co-chair of the Litigation practice, and chair of the Cannabis and Hemp practice, at Pashman Stein Walder Hayden in Hackensack. Timothy P. Malone is counsel in the firm's Litigation practice, with a focus on environmental and commercial litigation matters. Darcy Baboulis-Gyscek is an associate in the firm's Litigation practice.
|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 AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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