Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: The Impact Of Technology Upon Course Trial - 2,699 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... Tell The Story, Or Does It Become The Story? The same jurors who want to see a computerised re-creation of the crime may also be the most sceptical that it will reveal the truth because they know how such systems are engineered and how results can be fabricated. They may be entertained, but will they be convinced? Studies show that, after 72 hours, people remember only 10 percent of what they hear, 20 percent of what they see, but an amazing 65 percent of what they see and hear.

There is no doubt that demonstrative visual aids can help reinforce a message and make a lasting impression. Digital trial techniques, properly regulated by the trial judge, can legitimately appeal to the jurors's unconscious in ways that open their eyes to the truth. They can especially aid good storytelling where: (1) there are dynamic factors that may be difficult to explain verbally; (2) jurors need to feel the real time" of an event, as in a homicide self-defence claim in a struggle over a gun; (3) physical re-creation of the crime is impractical; (4) the event is too complex to be understood by verbal descriptions alone; or (5) other presentation methods are too primitive to yield a complete understanding, " (F) or example, a video may not allow viewing from a different perspective to enable the jury to perceive events happening simultaneously, " beyond the camera's eye, "but animation might do so quite effectively. " (Fred Galves) A simple reason to use CGEs [computer-generated exhibits] in advocacy is their ability to grab a jury's attention more firmly, and for a longer period of time, than standard static exhibits or mere words. This also may be attributable to the human mind's rapid reception of visual stimuli, such as television. A lawyer can either ignore the fact that jurors get most of their information from television (sight and hearing) rather than just the spoken word (hearing) or even the written word (sight), or a lawyer can choose to connect with the jurors in a way that the juror is comfortable and in a manner that the juror is accustomed to before ever stepping into a courtroom. (Galves, Wild Things, supra, at 191. ) Counterproductive?

Some in the legal profession say that too much of a good thing can be dicey. There are worries about too much technology either obscuring the message or appearing too overwhelming or too slick. A client's ability to pay for a more technologically advanced presentation could end up harming his own case. If you " re representing Goliath, and David's attorney is walking into the courtroom with a couple of blowups and a legal pad, and your case is one in which the plaintiff is talking about inequities between companies, and you " ve got all this sophisticated equipment, that could play into a jury's sensitivities. In addition, the growing use of technology in the courtroom raises perplexing questions about the admissibility of simulated evidence and re-enactments, and whether lawyers are able to manipulate materials through technological means to mislead judges and juries. The technology also poses challenges for techno phobic judges and lawyers, and for smaller law firms and solo practitioners without the resources of larger firms.

However, the ethical and legal issues involved in the use of high-tech exhibits versus traditional ones are different, but not entirely new. A lawyer presenting a computerised simulation or recreation has to meet the same evidentiary standards as when he or she presents a standard photograph, and show that it is fair and accurate. It's not about the technology, its about the evidence. Juror survey results that indicate 90 percent of jurors respond favourably to courtroom technology. In fact, jurors are able to see evidence clearly and follow both the attorney's as well as the witnesses' presentations without being overpowered by the technology. But could the skilful and proper use of digital technology somehow be too persuasive, turning the trial into a matter of which side has the better graphics?

To be sure, a well-designed and proficiently used digital presentation system can be highly effective and it seems plausible to suggest that the timely display of images on a single, large courtroom screen may have a greater impact on the jury than do those same images shown to jurors, one by one, in a standard photographic format, because the jury's perception of the demonstrative evidence becomes a shared, collective experience, condensed and focused in time. But there does not yet appear to be any reliable empirical research to lead to the exclusion of high-tech presentations. The mere fact that a given format or method allows evidence to be presented more effectively cannot be a good enough reason to exclude that format or method. To suggest otherwise would mean that photographs never would have been allowed into evidence, nor would have X-rays, MRIs, photocopies, audiotapes, or any of the other techniques and media developed in the last two centuries to record and display information.

Unless there is something specifically misleading about the particular technique being employed, disallowing an effective high-tech presentation simply because it is effective would simply punish the trial lawyer for that which he or she is obligated to do and interfere with the adversarial process. For a presentation system to be disallowed, any risk of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury that the presentation posed would have to outweigh the presentation's probative value. Yet the generally improved clarity, timeliness, and memorability of demonstrative evidence shown via an interactive digital presentation system would, if anything, appear to enhance the value of the technique, supporting its use at trial Ultimately, it seems unlikely that trials will devolve into mere contests of visual technologies. The strength of the evidence will remain the most important determinant of verdicts and the effectiveness of visual presentations will continue to depend on how well the proponents marshal the evidence and how well the visuals serve the proponents' theory of the case.

Overkill Along with knowing when to use digital media, there is also knowing when not to use too many media formats at the same time. Sometimes, using two media formats neutralise's the impact of both. In the Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy McVeigh, the government's most psychologically compelling evidence was the recording of the bombing itself made during the course of a proceeding only a block away. Because it so powerfully conveyed the impact upon the people subjected to the immediate effects of the explosion, the government rightly led off its case by playing this exhibit, intending to set the tone for the entire prosecution.

When the recording was played, the jury could witness the confusion, panic, and shock that followed the explosion, mirroring what must have been experienced in the Murray Federal Building. Along with the recording, prosecutors also presented a picture of the building in which the recording was made. The building was immaculate and well maintained in the photo taken on a sunny and pleasant day in Oklahoma City. The aural and the visual presentations to the jury were out of sync. The orderly stability of the visual image and the disturbing drama portrayed in the audio were sending a mixed message that lessened the profound emotional effect of the audio. The prosecution had been well intended; it wanted to give the jury a physical location to associate with what it heard.

Although logically appropriate, the combination was not emotionally appropriate, in that the minds of the jurors were being directed away from their own internal visualisation of the horrors of the collapsing walls, panic, and chaos the audio described by the placid photo of a small, pleasant, and intact building. The eyes should never be made to work against the ears and neither should ever work against the human imagination. Hearing without seeing evokes our imaginations to fill the visual void, to visualise what is being heard and, in this instance, allow the listener to experience the suffering, the shock, and the chaos of that horrific moment much more deeply than would be possible when the sounds heard are framed in a photograph of an intact building. The presence of a photograph attached an image, a framework, to the sounds, instead of allowing the listener's imagination to "see" what is being heard.

A stronger framework of empathy is created when the imagination is reinforced rather than contradicted by the media exhibit. Because we are multi sensory, the "reality" of one event conveyed in one medium leaves the mind to augment that single spoke of perception with speculation about other spokes of sensory input, in order to form a complete wheel of perception about that event. It takes the imagination of counsel to find the words, pictures, and sounds that the jurors' imaginations can seize upon to inform them about the "gestalt, " the unique emotional context the sound and imagery create when they are combined. Jurors' imaginations abhor a vacuum, and a computer simulation has the information intensity of a gallon of water being poured into a six-ounce glass. In the end, technology is just a tool. Ultimately in the courtroom, persuasive communication is the objective.

In order to perform and persuade, all the psychological studies say that showing -- in addition to telling -- enhances retention and understanding. Genetics As the twentieth century was drawing to a close, the U. S. Human Genome Project moved closer to its goal: determining and mapping the complete sequence of DNA in the human genome. The implications of the Project's work for courts and the entire legal system are enormous: The HGP's ultimate goal is to discover all of the more than 80, 000 human genes and render them accessible for further biological study... Information obtained as part of the HGP will dramatically change almost all biological and medical research and dwarf the catalogue of current genetic knowledge.

In the July-August 1998 issue of Judicature, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer writes about the interdependence of science and law. He notes that "law itself increasingly needs access to sound science" and that scientifically complex technology "increasingly underlies legal issues of importance to all of us. " Justice Breyer reminds us that "a judge is not a scientist and a courtroom is not a scientific laboratory" but that "to do our legal job properly we [need] to develop an informed, though necessarily approximate, understanding of the state of... relevant scientific art. " DNA technology is becoming increasingly integrated into our judicial system, especially in the criminal justice system. DNA analysis has proved to be a powerful tool to identify perpetrators and to exonerate the innocent.

The assimilation of DNA technology into criminal trials comes just as the role of the judiciary as gatekeeper in assessing scientific evidence is changing. It is said that biotechnology, including genetics, will be to the 21 st century what computer technology was to the 20 th. Thus the approach the legal system takes to integrate genetic information is critical. We must, as Justice Breyer writes, "build legal foundations that are sound in science, as well as in law...

to resolve many of the most important human problems of our time. " It is virtually certain that parties in both criminal and civil cases will assert behavioural genetic arguments well before there is general support for such views in the scientific community. These arguments are particularly appealing in criminal cases because they can be used to prove that the defendant was compelled to commit the act by uncontrollable genetic factors. If the adversary system encourages indeed demands that lawyers zealously advocate unproven scientific theories on behalf of their clients, the next important question is how will judges and juries view this evidence? By all indications, both judges and juries are ill prepared to evaluate the validity of novel scientific assertions, and juries are likely to give too much credence to such arguments.

The initial problem faced by a lawyer in trying to introduce scientific evidence is persuading the court that the proffered evidence is admissible. In an influential 1923 decision, Frye v. United States, the Court held that scientific evidence is admissible if the scientific community generally accepts it as valid. The so-called Frye-test lasted for 70 years, until the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Court held that Frye did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975. Under the Federal Rules, judges cannot defer to the scientific community's acceptance of the evidence in question. Instead, judges are required to make an independent determination of the reliability and probative value of the evidence. Judges must determine "whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid. " Jurors' lack of scientific expertise has resulted in a demonstrated inability to comprehend scientific evidence. Nevertheless, several studies have documented that jurors tend to put great credence in expert testimony, even though they do not understand it.

A key factor is the persuasiveness of the expert presenting the testimony. Putting together the factors discussed above produces the following results. The adversary system demands that lawyers introduce scientific evidence that may not have been rigorously tested, judges without scientific expertise must decide whether the methodology and theories have a valid scientific basis, novel scientific evidence is increasingly being found admissible, and juries often give great credence to the evidence even though they usually do not understand it, so long as the expert appears knowledgeable. There is no reason to believe that behavioural genetic information would not fit this pattern as well. The Law Does Not Operate Independently Of Culture, It Follows Culture How will the law respond to new discoveries in genetics, including behavioural genetics? Legislative and judicial responses to new genetic discoveries will have a major effect on whether we are about to enter an unprecedented period of behavioural genetic determinism and, with it, social disruption, or the promised enlightened era of genetic marvels.

While history does not preordain the future, it certainly reminds us of the stakes involved. Conclusion There has been an obvious internal conflict running throughout the length of this essay. Is the dawn of this new technological age going to be the making or breaking of the legal framework on which this society is so dependent? Court 21, the certainly futuristic, if perhaps utopian, project of the William and Mary School of Law shows the environment that the law students of today might expect to inhabit as the lawyers of tomorrow. Its been questioned whether the advantages of the advent of electronic evidence outweigh the disadvantages.

In todays media-savvy culture its almost expected of courtrooms to comply with this norm of multi media presentation, but this can be a daunting prospect for techno phobic counsel and judges alike, as well as harbouring the possibility of intimidating or possibly over impressing the jury with an abundance of digitalis ation. Finishing on a more Orwellian theme, quoting heavily from U. S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer when the Human Genome Project was on the brink of a scientific breakthrough likely to have a heavy ripple effect on the justice system, it becomes clear that it is not whether genetic evidence will ever be admitted into court, but when and under what kinds of circumstances. Earl Warren famously said that it was the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive. As in every modern walk of life in which technology now plays a significant part, the practice of law is still fundamentally the same as it has always been, though alterations in technique and method have taken place, it is clear that technology is not a substitute for process, hard work, and clear thinking, but simply another tool (albeit a very powerful one) in the hands of the well-prepared lawyer.

Fredric I. Lederer, chancellor professor of law at the William & Mary School of Law, puts it: "As trial looms on the horizon, counsel seeks to assure victory. Whether the goal is successful settlement or victory at trial, the wise lawyer routinely seeks to gain every ethical advantage possible. Increasingly, technology may well be not just an advantage but a deciding factor. "


Free research essays on topics related to: supreme court justice, human genome project, u s supreme court, scientific evidence, scientific community

Research essay sample on The Impact Of Technology Upon Course Trial

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com