Community Comments


The use of electronic methods of evidence made it so much easier for me to understand what evidence was being presented. I could see it myself, read it myself, make notes for future use in deliberations, and not have to deal with ‘paper’ while listening and reading. Unfortunately, I am too old and set in my ways to be able to understand how to use that method – I am an old paper guy. But I can see clearly how it helps the attorney . . . keep organized the documents to be presented to witnesses, particularly including on cross examination, and to keep under some control your pre-trial decisions on what you want to prove, how you want to prove it, and when you want to prove it.

I found the tablet to be positive compared to paper in general. It appears that the presenter was able to effectively highlight the pertinent sections referred to or discussed in testimony without the distraction of the remainder of the document. It seemed more efficient than the Elmo, and less cumbersome to the presenter. I found that the method contributed to the clarity of the information.

I was really impressed with the use [of the tablet]. The ability to display documents, recall exhibits and smoothly present the evidence was truly helpful. I have always tried to avoid ‘new technology’ in the court room as something always [goes] wrong, gets bogged down, etc. I have tried an awful lot of cases and that was the best use of technology I have seen in a trial, beyond perhaps some expert IT usage of exhibits in a med mal case.