E1 See. Hear. Speak.

Technology Transforms Trials in U.S. Court
By Bill Miller

The Washington Post

Like a lot of trials in U.S. District Court, this one promises to be a battle of documents. A contractor is suing Metro, claiming the transit authority should be ordered to pay $40 million to cover its cost overruns on the Green Line construction project.

The case, which got under way last Friday, had the potential to turn into a real eye-strainer for the jury. But instead of going through the paperwork by hand, jurors are sitting back and studying the materials on monitors stationed in the jury box.

Lawyers are using a visual presenter and other technology to move the case along in a courtroom that has been specially equipped with modern electronics.

It's a far cry from the days, not so long ago, when lawyers rummaged through cartons of papers, looking for an elusive exhibit, or when they gingerly attempted to balance an oversized chart on a rickety easel. Now they can call up Document 734 on their compact disc, flash it on a computer monitor and zoom in for a close-up for all to see.

The federal courthouse in Washington has two fully equipped electronic courtrooms, and another is in the planning stages. They're almost constantly in use, with judges occupying them for everything from routine gun cases to bruising antitrust battles. The trial taking place in Courtroom 9 is a fight involving a claim by Kiska-Kajima Construction Co. for money it says it's owed for digging 3,200 feet of tunnels on 14th Street NW. Metro says the $44 million it already paid the company was enough.

"If you tell people this is state-of-the-art, they think of something more high-tech than this," said U.S. District Judge James Robertson, whose Courtroom 16 was wired last year. "But for courts, this is high-tech. . . . It's really quite remarkable what can be done by the lawyers who know how to use this and use it properly."

For starters, the lawyers' podium is equipped with a videotape machine, an audiotape machine, a computer port, and the visual presenter known as ELMO. Lawyers can place documents or objects on the ELMO presenter, which displays them on the monitors in stunning clarity. The 14-inch color monitors are everywhere in the courtroom -- in the jury box, on the lawyers' and court clerks' tables, on the judge's bench, and at the podium and the witness stand. People in the audience aren't shortchanged: they have a clear view of a 42-inch, flat-screen monitor turned toward the spectators' section.

One especially popular feature is nicknamed the "John Madden" annotator, for the Fox-TV sportscaster known for his scribbly diagrams of complex football plays. Lawyers can use a pen-like annotator at the podium's monitor to underline or circle key parts of documents or to point to items of interest. Witnesses can accomplish the same objective at their monitor, but they make their markings by tracing with their fingers.

"The rationale behind all this is partly to save courtroom time, which, well-used, it does," said Robertson, who serves on a committee studying automation for the Judicial Conference of the United States. "But more importantly, it's to increase juror comprehension and to make the storytelling at trials more effective."

The technology is part of a broader push to help the D.C. federal court keep pace in the electronic age. The court has its own Web site, www.dcd.uscourts.gov, that includes copies of major rulings, daily and weekly schedules and other information. It's about to take part in a pilot project in which lawyers will be able to file briefs and other papers electronically, eliminating the need to shower the court with paper.

The court's first electronic courtroom was launched in 1997, among the first 10 in the nation. Now roughly 125 federal courts nationwide have gone high-tech. The court also was among the first to designate a full-time technology specialist, John Cramer.

Cramer not only makes sure that the courtrooms are ready for trial. He's also often at the courthouse at night, instructing lawyers about ways to get the most from the system.

"John makes it accessible to lawyers," Robertson said. "You could call him a salesman, almost. But his job isn't to make a sale but to make it easier."

According to Cramer, the two courtrooms have been in heavy demand. Robertson often gives up his courtroom to other judges. For a stretch two years ago, Thomas F. Hogan rarely got to use his own Courtroom 9 because other judges wanted it. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is now using it for the dispute involving Metro.

Cramer also has access to four mobile systems that feature the ELMO presenter, video monitors and computer inputs. One was put into use last week as prosecutors began presenting evidence in the case against alleged members of the K Street Crew, a Southwest Washington drug gang accused of carrying out 18 killings and other violence.

An overwhelming number of jurors say they are helped by the changes, Cramer said.

The technology can help expose weaknesses in some witnesses. Attorneys can easily play an FBI surveillance tape, for example, to contradict a witness's denials that he took part in a drug buy. Or they can quickly display a transcript of something the witness had said previously in a bid to show that it conflicts with what the witness is telling the jury.

Hogan said judges estimate they can cut the length of trials by 20 percent through the effective use of technology. "It's a very worthwhile process," he said.

Thanks to the court's video-conferencing ability, witnesses don't even necessarily have to be in Washington to take part in proceedings. Their testimony can be beamed in from another locale. Hogan was planning to get testimony that way from a witness in Honolulu. Robertson once took testimony from three witnesses in Salt Lake City.

Robertson's courtroom is equipped with three cameras so that those taking part from other locations can watch the action. Last summer, Senior Judge Louis F. Oberdorfer was a remote participant as a member of a three-judge panel hearing a case in Philadelphia.

Oberdorfer was participating from Washington. The other two judges, and the attorneys arguing the case, were in Philadelphia. Oberdorfer said the arrangement was made because he could not be in Philadelphia, but he said he missed seeing everyone in person.

"I would treat it as an emergency, not something that could be done routinely," he said. "I think the business of a video of a witness who isn't available should be the exception. If they want to litigate, they ought to be here."

Officials said it costs about $150,000 to outfit a courtroom with the electronic features. Across the country, modernizing the courts has turned into an industry for businesses such as ExhibitOne Corp., which did the work in Washington.

"The appeal is it makes it so much more effective for an attorney to present evidence," said ExhibitOne's president, Kevin Sandler. "You really bring the jurors' attention to what is relevant and allow them to tune out what is not."

At the same time, Sandler said, lawyers must be careful not to rely too heavily on gadgetry. "You don't want it to be about the technology," he said.

Sandler's company isn't the only one making money. A legion of trial consultants offers assistance to lawyers seeking help with their visual presentations. Software packages also have emerged for lawyers who want to work on their own.

Robertson said most trial lawyers rely on paralegals, co-counsels, or outside experts to use the more sophisticated equipment so that they can remain focused on questions and answers. That's what Washington lawyer Reid H. Weingarten did when he worked on a trial in an electronic courtroom in Chicago.

"I'm a dinosaur. It takes me a while to figure out how to do all the stuff," Weingarten said. "Once you get the knack of it, it really helps the presentation."

Another Washington lawyer, Tefft Smith, an antitrust specialist with the firm of Kirkland & Ellis, had his evidence on compact discs when he appeared before Robertson last fall in a case involving H.J. Heinz Co.'s proposed $185 million acquisition of Milnot Holding Co., the parent of Beech-Nut baby food.

Smith represented Milnot, which was fighting the Federal Trade Commission's bid to block the merger. Smith's side prevailed, but the case is now headed for the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.