You are currently browsing the archives for the Visual Evidence category.

Follow me on Twitter

Blog archive

We Participate In:

You are currently browsing the archives for the Visual Evidence category.

ABA Journal Blawg 100!

Subscribe to The Jury Room via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Login

Archive for the ‘Visual Evidence’ Category

While you may think most of the things we write about here are on litigation advocacy (and you would be correct) we also care about you, dear reader.

We have written often about smartphones and their ubiquitous presence in our lives. This is a post to update you on the increasingly cruel reality of the role smartphones play in our emotional experiences, how they accentuate our personality traits, and the ways they affect our work lives.

Excessive smart phone use leads to emotional problems

This finding stems from research at SUNY Binghamton where they found smartphone use could result in “depression, social isolation, social anxiety, shyness, impulsivity and low self-esteem. Females were most likely to exhibit susceptibility to addiction.” The researchers surveyed 182 undergraduate students by asking them questions about their smartphone use on a typical day. They then categorized the respondents based on their answers into the following categories: Thoughtful, Regular, Highly Engaged, Fanatic and Addict.

If you wonder how they developed these categories and why the labels sound judgmental—the researchers answer that question this way: “building on the analysis of 15 in-depth interviews and 182 exploratory open-ended surveys collected from smartphone users, we apply the concept of liability to addiction in the IT use context and propose a typological theory of user liability to IT addiction. Our typology reveals five ideal types; each can be associated to a user profile (ADDICT, FANATIC, HIGHLY ENGAGED, REGULAR AND THOUGHTFUL).”

[Essentially, what this means is they made it up. And as to why some of the labels seem judgmental—we will leave that for you to ponder.]

The reported findings will not surprise you if you own a smartphone. “Seven percent [of the participants were] identified [by the researchers] as “addicts” and 12 percent [were labeled by the researchers] as “fanatics.” Both groups [based on the researchers qualitative analysis] experience personal, social and workplace problems due to a compulsive need to be on their smartphones.”

You may also want to check out a brief list of “problem signs” in smartphone use which (the researchers say) may mean you need to consult “a professional”.

In addition to the emotional issues above, there is also concern about whether smartphones are (in combination with increased overall “screen time” reducing our social skills and causing increased shyness. The short answer, at least from these authors, is that we remain simultaneously shy and sociable and our smartphones allow new ways for us express that juxtaposition. [It is possible, based on the other entries in this post, that the authors with this pleasant explanation on shyness actually works for the smartphone industry.]

Smart phones are sneakily changing our morals

How you respond to an ethical dilemma requiring a quick decision (on something in either your work or home life where the stakes are high but the time frame for response is short) seems to depend on whether you are communicating your response on a smartphone or on a computer with a traditional keyboard. [This is so not good.] This study is out of London and was published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior. Tom Jacobs (an always excellent writer over at PSMag) brought this article to our attention and he quotes the authors and then offers his own interpretation of their work:

“in general, more hurried or time-pressured responses are thought to be aligned with more emotional/gut feeling decisions.”

In other words, when we’re rushed, we tend to rely on our intuitive responses, which—in the case of moral questions—means falling back onto a set of basic rules we learned in childhood. But, oddly, Barque-Duran and his colleagues found that is not the case when the troubling information is conveyed via smartphone.

Instead, what the researchers found when the information was conveyed via smartphone screens, was that rather than falling back on our playground values, the small screen somehow encourages us to psychologically distance and to make practical or utilitarian decisions rather than emotional and intuitive ones. The researchers say the small screen seems to result in psychological distance and thus decisions are less emotionally based.

Regardless of how it works, we clearly need more research on how the ever-present small screens interact with how we make decisions.

There is some good news though!

The interruptibility model: Researchers are looking into ways to help us teach our smartphones when to interrupt us with notifications so we can actually get some work done. New research findings which shockingly report that “inappropriate or untimely smartphone interruptions annoy users, decrease productivity and affect emotions” is being presented this month at the “premier international conference on human-computer interactions”. The researchers refer to it as an “interruptibility model” and you can view their graphical representation here. Hopefully, it will not take them long to disseminate their results to the rest of us!

Lessons from research: There are also ways we can decrease our addictive (aka constant, obsessive, ritualistic) use of smartphones and you can see those results here. Be forewarned: the recommendations involve suggestions like keeping your phone out of reach, turning off the sound, and classifying your apps as good or evil.

Older adults are adopting technology: Finally! A record share (42%) of senior citizens (65+) now own smartphones. While this may mean Grandma may not look at you but instead, text her friends furiously and update her Facebook status constantly, it also means, older Americans are likely to develop the same ambivalence with which many of us view our smartphones.

Barque-Duran, A., Pothos, E., Hampton, J., & Yearsley, J. (2017). Contemporary morality: Moral judgments in digital contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 184-193 DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.020

Image

Share
Comments Off on The many ways your smartphone is trying to  control you….

We love Pew Research and their work on cataloguing how society here in the United States changes slowly or quickly (as the case may be) over time. A review of their hard work gives you a sense of what changes are underway in our now constantly changing “new normal”. They have published a lot in 2016 to help us understand how our potential jurors are changing. Take a look at just a few of the sixteen stories they deem “striking” from 2016. We’re telling the Pew story with their own pictures. Go to the site itself to read the details. [The spacing on this post is beyond us so please scroll…thanks!]

Significant demographic changes in America have reshaped our major political parties—our political parties look very different now than they did during the George W. Bush presidency.   

 

And voters are divided on where the country is headed as well as whether that direction is better or worse. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Millennials are now the largest generation of living Americans (bigger than Boomers)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And more of the Millennials live with their parents than ever seen with young people before (although it should be noted that this trend has been growing for years now and it is not a Millennial “thing”).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Along with generational shifts, we are also seeing increased racial tensions with about four-in-ten blacks (43%) being skeptical that America will ever make the changes needed for blacks to achieve equal rights with whites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And we are wary of what new technologies will mean for our lives.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pew summary of the 16 most striking findings in their surveys published in 2016 is fascinating reading if you want to know (as most of us do) how the country is changing and what that may mean for our potential jurors. There is more division and demographic change than we’ve seen in some time and it will most likely play a significant role in how your case is heard by jurors.

Take a look at Pew’s end of year summary and update yourself on how things stand now on a wide variety of subjects that may be part of your own up coming case narratives.

Images taken from Pew site

Share
Comments Off on Pew Research looks back at 2016: Things you need to  know about how Americans have changed 


As Editor of The Jury Expert since 2008, I’m happy to share the table of contents of our new Winter 2016 issue! As always, The Jury Expert is brought to you free of charge by the excellent trial consultants who write for us and by the academic researchers who take their time to summarize their research and share it so we can use it in our day-to-day work for litigation advocacy.

Trial Consultants, TV Law, and a Load of Bull

Richard Gabriel takes a close look at the new television show ‘Bull’ and muses about how the show does and does not represent reality as well as how it may affect perceptions of the justice system by potential jurors (who do watch TV).

What Television Can Teach Us about Trial Narrative

Stepping back, Richard Gabriel teaches us how television shows (like ‘Bull’ but certainly not limited to ‘Bull’) can help us craft more effective courtroom narratives.

Juries, Witnesses, and Persuasion: A Brief Overview of the Science of Persuasion and Its Applications for Expert Witness Testimony

Rebecca Valez, Tess M.S. Neal, and Margaret Bull Kovera team up to offer a primer on persuasion. What modes of persuasion will work best in the testimony of your expert witness? Then we have trial consultant responses from Jennifer Cox and Stan Brodsky, John Gilleland, and Elaine Lewis and a final reply from the authors.

Graphics Double Comprehension

Jason Barnes succinctly tells us how graphics can result in your words telling a much more effective story–even doubling comprehension of the listener.

Making It Moral: How Morality Can Harden Attitudes and Make Them More Influential

Andrew Luttrell offers this intriguing strategy (based on his research) to make attitudes stronger and more influential. Trial consultants Sonia Chopra and Charli Morris react to his work with commentary on how they would use this research in day-to-day litigation advocacy.

The Hidden Lives of Court Reporters

They are always present and always silent. But what is going on in the minds of those dutiful court reporters as they type everything said in cases ranging from the mundane to the traumatizing? Claire E. Moore, Stanley L. Brodsky, and David Sams talk to court reporters and share their perspectives and coping strategies.

More Techniques for Uncovering Juror Bias before It’s Too Late

Mykol Hamilton and Kate Zephyrhawke share how to uncover bias in change of venue surveys in criminal cases by using alternate wording for time-honored questions that result in very different answers (and higher bias).

Image is The Jury Expert logo

Share
Comments Off on The Winter 2016 issue of The Jury Expert has published! 

CRISPR teaching videoWe’ve written about CRISPR (aka gene editing) before and even about concerns of Americans about use of emerging technologies, and while this post is sort of about CRISPR—it is also about visual evidence done right.

We often work on cases where jurors will need to understand very complex information. It may be a patent case or a complex business litigation case or something else that is technically daunting—but jurors often need to understand something very complicated. And often that something is very technologically advanced (and thus intimidating to the jurors).

It is almost always a very difficult process for the attorneys in a complex case (in which they have often been buried for years) to see through the many details of a complicated technology and tell a simple (yet accurate) story for jurors. We often test visual evidence in our pretrial research to see what resonates with jurors, what they remember, and what helps them to make sense of abstract and esoteric technology, processes, or patented ideas.

When we see terrific examples of visual evidence (culled from many different areas) we like to share them here to help you understand there really is a way to take very, very complex facts and details and make them accessible to those who have no experience whatsoever in the area and may be very intimidated by even attempting to understand the information.

Here is just such a video tutorial. This video uses cartoon images and plain language to explain the gene editing technique referred to as CRISPR. While the last parts of the video place it clearly in the pro-CRISPR camp, the first parts explain the technology clearly and succinctly. Because it is in a cartoon format (with which we are all familiar from childhood) it is non-threatening. Since it is visually presented, we are able to understand a tremendous amount of technical information without jargon or numbers that make less technical viewers’ eyes glaze over.

If CRISPR can be explained in a few minutes of cartoons, you can explain anything in ways the most naïve juror can understand. All you need is a fabulous visual evidence consultant. We happen to know a few of them!

Image

Share
Comments Off on Visual Evidence: Teaching about complex ideas (CRISPR  or gene editing) with videos

slow-motion-bullets-1-500x320New research tells us you may not want to have slow motion videos played at trial if you are the defense attorney. However, if you are the prosecutor—push hard for that video! It’s really a simple lesson: when jurors see slowed down footage of an event, they are more likely to think the person on the screen has acted deliberately (and that will likely mean a more severe sentence and/or verdict).

The researchers say that while the slowed down footage does give the observer better ability to see what happened clearly, it also creates a “false impression that the actor had more time to premeditate” then when the events are viewed in real-time. Their experiments show (among other things) that jurors seeing a crime as calculated rather than impulsive can mean the difference between a “lethal injection and a lesser sentence”. That’s a profound impact from a video.

In a series of experiments, the researchers showed participants a video of an attempted armed robbery where the shop employee was shot and killed. When participants watched the video slowed down, they were 3x more likely to convict the defendant than those who watched the video in real-time.

The researchers reference the trial of John Lewis (still on death row for murdering a police officer in 2007) and the slowed down video used at his trial. Defense attorneys argued on appeal that the slowed down video evidence at his trial made jurors think his actions were premeditated, but prosecutors said since both regular speed and slowed down video were played—jurors were not confused. The judges sided with the prosecutors.

In this set of experiments, researchers tested the notion by showing participants both a real-time speed video and the slowed down version. What they found was that “slow motion replay, compared with regular speed replay, produces systematic differences in judgments of intent”. And, said the researchers, showing both regular speed and slow motion video was “somewhat, albeit not completely, effective in reducing the impact of slow motion on first-degree murder convictions”. In other words, showing both versions does not entirely mitigate the bias introduced by the slow-motion version.

We have all had the experience of watching an action movie in which car crash or a fight is filmed in slow motion. We watch and think to ourselves “Oh no! Slow down!” before the crash. The slow motion allows us to imagine escape alternatives even while we see the events unfold before us. Showing a shooting in slow motion offers the same sense of “Don’t do it!” and alternatives to the bad outcome that don’t occur in real-time.

The researchers see this as a question of whether and under what conditions slow motion video should even be allowed in court and think it imperative that the benefits be weighed against potential costs. Their results, they say, support the idea that slow-motion videos appear to influence observers in a more punitive way than real-time speed. Showing both speeds—mitigates to a degree but not entirely (so the slow-motion still has a chilling effect on juror emotions and decisions).

From a litigation advocacy perspective, this is a reference you may want to tuck away to support a motion to not allow slow motion videos to be shown at a trial where you are defense counsel. Slow motion video is most likely to be found desirable by a prosecutor or plaintiff. While it will certainly be a strategy prosecutors will want to employ (to increase the sense of premeditation and intentionality in jurors observing the video), this article was designed to test the decisions made in the John Lewis appeal and could be found persuasive to judges.

Caruso, E., Burns, Z., & Converse, B. (2016). Slow motion increases perceived intent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1603865113

Image

Share
Comments Off on Slow motion videos and juror perception of time for  intentional acts