Please note that these materials are provided for historical purposes only. The information presented is out of date and may be neither accurate nor useful. External hyperlinks may no longer be valid. For current court technology information, please see the new Court Technology Bulletin.
July/August 1995 Volume 7 Number 4
Cirque du O.J.
For the past 14 months America has been held captive by the O.J. Simpson murder trial in Los Angeles. The trial has been a nightly segment on the national news. CNN has provided gavel-to-gavel coverage, and the video tabloids have stumbled over each other to obtain exclusive stories for their nightly broadcasts. In short, the media frenzy has taken on the aura of a nightly circus, Cirque du O.J.
But the media haven't been the only ones rushing to capitalize on the trial. Some of the nation's biggest names in technology have been involved in a virtual stampede to get on the O.J. bandwagon. Dozens of companies have been successful in getting either one of the parties or the court to use their products or services. Scores of other companies tried and failed to make the line-up.
When Judge Lance Ito was assigned as trial judge, I suggested that he utilize two specific systems. I had worked with these two companies and felt they could form the nucleus of a computer-integrated trial court. I also suggested he take immediate control of the technology by providing court systems rather than allowing the attorneys to decide which systems would be provided. Leaving the technology decisions to the attorneys could lead to a "star wars" trial, with each side trying to outdo the other. Multiple systems could put each side at a disadvantage if they had to use their opponent's system. Using one court-controlled system was the only way to ensure a level playing field for both sides.
Judge Ito adopted my first recommendation and selected the court reporting and evidence presentations systems I suggested. However, he didn't follow through on the second recommendation that there be just one technology system for both sides to share. This lack of control, coupled with each side’s distrust of the other and strong desire to keeps future actions and plans private, has led to some problems early on and promises to cause some headaches down the road before the trial concludes.
Two real-time court reporting systems are being used for the trial. Judge Ito and the prosecution share one system, while the defense is taking their real-time from a different system. Fortunately, each real-time system has universal compatibility with the real-time output of the court-reporting system being used by the court reporters who are making the official record. But the dual systems have caused problems several times when the defense attorneys, in arguing an objection, have referred to the unofficial real-time record on their display monitors. The use of two systems, each programmed with different pagination commands, font sizes, and starting points, has resulted in several instances of one party referring to a line and page cite that doesn't correspond to the same page and line reference of the others.
There are three evidence presentation systems in the courtroom. The court’s full multimedia system allows attorneys to retrieve and display images of items of evidence from a number of storage devices. There is a 1 gigabyte hard drive onto which images of evidence can be scanned by a full-page color flatbed scanner. There are also a laser disc player, CD-ROM drive, VCR, and photo CD player from which evidence can be called up for display to the jury, court and counsel. The images are outputted through a projection gun and displayed onto a concave ultra white screen mounted above, behind, and to the left of the witness stand. The system and a full-time operator have been provided pro bono at a total cost in excess of $100,000.
The defense is relying on an encrypted CD-ROM based evidence database for their source of evidence presentation. Used very little during the prosecution's case-in-chief, this system may give the defense an advantage. Images stored in an encrypted format can be called up from a CD, displayed for the jury, and then annotated with the use of a light-pen. The images, annotated or not, are then printed out on a color printer for later use during jury deliberations. The problem arises when the prosecution wants to cross-examine a witness for the defense who uses annotated encrypted images. Will the defense let the prosecution use their system and, if so, will the prosecution know enough about the system's capabilities to use it effectively during cross-examination? Or will the prosecution be limited to using the printed piece of evidence? Potential problems could have been avoided, and much of the hardware taking up valuable space in an already crowded courtroom could have been eliminated, if the court had taken command of the technical issues rather that leaving them to the attorneys.
The prosecution has relied substantially on large static exhibits boards to get their message across to the jury. This has created several problems. The static boards are unwieldy to say the least; some measure over eight feet high and are four to five feet wide. Several of the alternate jurors have been struck by the boards during placement. And the jury will somehow have to manage 40 to 60 of these large exhibits by the end of the trial.
Neither side has tried to coordinate the technology. The only attempt at coordination was when both sides brought in their own video-based presentation systems and then agreed to share just one. This coordination was inspired more by the desire to increase counsel table space than in any true desire to cooperate. A lack of coordination also exists between the court and it’s vendors. One example of this is in the placement of the display system. Initially, the display system was located at the end of the jury box and out of the way. Without informing the vendor, Judge Ito reconfigured his courtroom to accommodate the alternate jurors. Juror seating was installed in the place reserved for the rear projection monitor. The vendor was forced to make the necessary adjustments in very little time. Images are now projected across a lighted courtroom effecting to some extent the sharpness of the image and creating neck problems for witnesses and some jurors looking up at the screen. This has been remedied by giving these jurors a separate monitor.
Much can be learned from Cirque du O.J. If technology is going to be used, judges should only use one system for evidence presentation and only one system for real-time court reporting. Everyone--the court, the prosecution (or plaintiff), and the defense--should be well versed in the use of each technology to ensure a fair trial. Coordination between the court and each side is a must. Technology, well managed, can be a great benefit. Technology, poorly managed, benefits no one.
George W. Trammell, is a judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court. He has been involved in courtroom technology for the past seven years, developing a calendar management application, evidence presentation system, and a real-time court-reporting system. For more information contact (909) 620-3077.
Technology product or service providers for the O.J. Simpson trial include Sony, NEC, Pioneer, Canon, Eastman Kodak, Electra Home, InVzn, Trial Presentation Technologies, Smith-Bernal, Forensic Technologies, Decision Quest, American Video Communications, and Stenograph Corp.
Back to Court Technology Bulletin
Send comments to webmaster@ncsc.dni.us!
