Evidence training for the trial lawyer helps to give a refresher course on their legal training.

If a court case were a car, then the judge, jury, and attorneys can be accepted as the frame, engine, and steering wheel, respectively. Along this same metaphor, the evidence would thus be the fuel. In other words, whereas a case is comprised of an array of components, it just isn’t going anywhere without evidence. Subsequently, if legislative knowledge and persuasion are important, an ability to maneuver evidence is absolutely essential (actually, all three are indispensable, but the semantic juxtaposition is effective). Of course, evidence is covered in law school and frequently in continuing legal education as well, but specialists in the field posit that there are little-known and lesser-referenced gaps in the education of attorneys that result in the flaccid presentation of evidence. Two of these gaps are summarized below.

Psychodrama and Evidence

Psychodrama is loosely defined as communication expressed through action. For all intents and purposes, it is a study of human interaction with a concentration on nonverbal communication. There have been a number of specialists, most notably Dana Cole (whose article on the matter was published in the Northern Illinois University Law Review) that tout the importance of the study of psychodrama by trial attorneys in preparation for trial. Although it is usually associated with theater and literature, psychologists and psychodramatists also instrumentalize it in group therapy sessions, and it is regularly used in focus groups in business and industry environments as well as in law.

Lawyers use two aspects of psychodrama. One aspect is focus groups – an attorney would use a temporary employment agency to procure a small pool of 5-6 representative jurors, and convene with them and the client in order to conduct a mock trial/focus group. This will help to solidify a defendant’s story while anticipating juror response.

The other aspect is the study of body language and behavioral prompts. This will both serve to better coach a client pretrial as well as master nonverbal cues that will direct the attention of the jury to certain bodies of evidence.

Using Technology for Evidence

This is a premise entertained by the American Bar Association – lawyers do not utilize available technology to its fullest extent when presenting evidence. Not only could it establish a more compelling case, but the use of technology can also expedite the litigation process and expend fewer resources (like paper). In the interest of saving time and money while bolstering attention, the American Bar Association suggested a list of advances that better befit lawyers practicing a decade into the new millennium:

• Electronic filing
• Electronic discovery
• Online depositions
• Courtroom hardware (appalling to use 6th grade projectors when we have high definition plasma screens at our disposal!)
• Litigation software

Included in these suggestions is the allegation that attorneys need further training in legal technology in order to perform more effectively. With the inclusion of statistics (such as the 30% dubiously referred to as a majority that did not receive any training), the premise did seem substantiated.