Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhanced Persuasion in the Courtroom: Visually Dynamic Demonstrative Evidence and Juror Decision Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Trial Consulting

Abstract

Trial lawyers may benefit from the use of visually dynamic media to persuade jurors of their case. While this approach is not new, advances in computer technology have changed the methods available for trial lawyers to best present their arguments, making for more vivid and compelling persuasive appeals (FJC & NITA, 2001; Lederer, 2004). This chapter addresses the issues surrounding the uses of visually dynamic demonstrative evidence: video simulation/reenactments and computer animation. Although little direct empirical research on computer-animated displays has been conducted, basic research findings from cognitive and social psychology can shed light on the possible reasons why demonstrative evidence may enhance the persuasiveness of an attorney’s case. This chapter proceeds with an overview of visually dynamic demonstrative evidence, followed by an analysis of the empirical research on videotape and computer-animated demonstrative evidence. In light of the direct research on videotape and computer-animated demonstrative evidence, basic findings from cognitive and social psychology that may provide useful explanatory mechanisms are discussed. The chapter concludes with suggestions for the most effective use of demonstrative evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 659–664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1171–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. B., Leibman, J. H., & Fetter, R. E. (1999). Seeing is believing; Or is it? An empirical study of computer simulations as evidence. Wake Forest Law Review, 34, 257–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, B. H., & Nemeth, R. J. (1999). Jurors’ perception of violence: A framework for inquiry. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, B. H., & Rajki, M. (1994). Extra-legal factors and product liability: The influence of mock jurors’ demographic characteristics and intuitions about the cause of an injury. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, B., & Feigenson, N. (2004). Visual persuasion in the Michael Skakel trial: Enhancing advocacy through interactive media presentations. Criminal Justice, 19, 22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors’ decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. A., Salovey, P., & Feigenson, N. (2006). The jury persuaded (and not): Computer animation in the courtroom. Law & Policy, 28, 228–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Judicial Center and National Institute for Trial Advocacy. (2001). Effective use of courtroom technology: A judge’s guide to pretrial and trial. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Evidence (2009). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, N. (2006). Too real? The future of virtual reality evidence. Law & Policy, 28, 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, N., & Dunn, M. A. (2003). New visual technologies in court: Directions for research. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 109–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fishfader, V. L., Howells, G. N., Katz, R. C., & Teresi, P. S. (1996). Evidential and extralegal factors in juror decisions: Presentation mode, retention, and level of emotionality. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 565–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, W. L., Cialdini, R. B., & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Dunn, M. A. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 269–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, F. I. (2004). Introduction: What have we wrought? William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 12, 637–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuliff, B. D., Nemeth, R. J., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. (2003). Juror decision-making in the twenty-first century: Confronting science and technology in the court. In D. Carson & R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (2nd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (2008). Social psychology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Assigning weights to data: The “vividness criterion”. In R. E. Nisbett & L. Ross (Eds.), Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1966). Latency of verbal associations and imagery to noun stimuli as a function of abstractness and generality. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 378–387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76, 241–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 279–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A., Philipchalk, R., & Rowe, E. J. (1975). Free and serial recall of pictures, sounds, and words. Memory & Cognition, 3, 586–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyes, R. M., Thompson, W. C., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 2–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F., & Reynolds, K. D. (1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61, 857–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. L., & Studebaker, C. A. (1996). What do you expect?: The influence of people’s prior knowledge of crime categories on fact-finding. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 517–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, E. C. (2006). The courtroom of the future is here: Introduction to emerging technologies in the legal system. Law and Policy, 28, 182–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. G., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1989). Information competition and vividness effects in on-line judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, 54481, USA

    Robert J. Nemeth

Authors
  1. Robert J. Nemeth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert J. Nemeth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

  2. Dept. Psychology, University of Nebraska, Burnett Hall 335, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nemeth, R.J. (2011). Enhanced Persuasion in the Courtroom: Visually Dynamic Demonstrative Evidence and Juror Decision Making. In: Wiener, R., Bornstein, B. (eds) Handbook of Trial Consulting. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation