CHICAGO (AP) – The basis of the case against the former Minneapolis police officer charged with the murder of George Floyd is a mountain of video evidence, but it is not that easy to present to jurors.
Prosecutors repeatedly showed videos of security cameras, bystanders’ cell phones and police room and dash cameras, and asked witnesses to record footage or photos and tell the action on screen.
Large screens or projectors are an accessory of modern courtrooms, along with software similar to PowerPoint designed for the presentation of videos, photos and other evidence in the courtroom. But the quality of the technology and its use by lawyers varies.
WHAT’S GOING ON?
The courtroom used for Derek Chauvin’s trial is the largest and only one in the Hennepin County courthouse equipped with the tools to present and record videos and other visual evidence.
Jurors can see evidence on three monitors.
A touchscreen monitor was placed at the witness stand. Prosecutors asked witnesses to circle themselves or to indicate details using a stylus.
Judge Peter Cahill of Hennepin County has a monitor at his bank and he can control when the notes of a witness are visible in the courtroom.
Prosecutors played dozens of video footage of bystanders’ cell phones, the cameras worn by Chauvin and other officers, and surveillance cameras on the street and in the neighborhood store where Floyd allegedly passed on a counterfeit $ 20 bill.
They used a picture-in-picture feature to play back cell phone videos of Floyd and the officers along an uninterrupted stream from the street from a surveillance camera, which allows jurors to see from multiple perspectives and the context of the bystander videos. make.
The defense has yet to file his case, but Chauvin’s attorney Eric Nelson has indicated he will also rely on video evidence to show his client is not guilty.
Cahill and the lawyers also use a system of headphones and microphones that allow them to speak privately and stay socially distanced, instead of approaching the court.
IS SUCH A GARDEN TECHNOLOGY TYPICAL?
The pandemic has forced many courts to adopt technology quickly, and some hope that these positive experiences will inspire more attorneys to use technological tools when they return to courtrooms.
But many attorneys do not have the time and resources to prepare a submission at the level of detail seen in the Chauvin case, said Jessica Silbey, a professor at Boston University of Law.
Michael Moore, a lawyer for Beadle County in eastern South Dakota, said the cost was the biggest deterrent for many lawyers, followed by discomfort.
Moore said he regularly uses software to compile timelines, display documents and other visual evidence in cases. He believes it is easier for judges to follow his arguments, and it saves time during the trial compared to handing out old school photos or documents.
However, Moore has regularly said that courtrooms are not ‘wired’ for lawyers who embrace such instruments. Moore brings his own flat screen monitor to a few trials to ensure jurors have a good view.
It is difficult to know how many courthouses in the US can accommodate such technology.
Fred Lederer, director of the Center for Legal & Court Technology at William & Mary Law School, said decisions to purchase the equipment – which has existed since the early 1990s – regularly involve judges and court administrators, local elected officials and IT staff, and can be ‘very complicated’.
WHY DOES THIS TOOL CLOSE?
Prosecutors have made no secret of their strategy to keep jurors’ focus on video evidence capturing Chauvin’s actions. Prosecutors played the full video of the meeting during the opening statements, emphasizing that the officer pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds.
Lawyers who dispute a case with critical video evidence cannot accept that everyone views it through the same lens. Silbey said. They should draw jurors’ attention by delaying the footage, circling or highlighting an event, and telling what is happening.
“Lawyers make a mistake when they accept that people see what they see and that the video speaks for itself,” Silbey said.
People understand and remember information more easily when it comes with a visual aid, Lederer said.
“By presenting information visually, judges and judges can better understand what is happening,” he said. “And if you have good evidence, you can convince better from a lawyer’s point of view.”
Lawyers, however, need to walk a rigid line. One memorable mistake led to a review in the New Jersey Supreme Court and judges in January dropped a conviction for the bank robbery.
The prosecutor improperly used an image of Jack Nicholson in ‘The Shining’ in a slide displayed during her closing argument, the court found.
“Visual aids such as PowerPoint presentations must meet the same standards as the spoken words of the council,” the opinion reads.
___
Find AP’s full coverage of George Floyd’s death at: https://apnews.com/hub/death-of-george-floyd