Technology at Trial
Wayne County whizzes
take courtroom technology
way beyond PowerPoint
By Taryn Hartman and Maria Dell I’Sola
As society becomes increasingly wired in the era of
iTunes and YouTube, two Wayne County prosecutors are
transmitting new technology to the courtroom with “cutting-
edge” multimedia presentations they use to present cases
at trial.
In more than half of the 60 murder cases Wayne County
Assistant Prosecutor Patrick Muscat has tried, he has
used inexpensive trial presentation software, PowerPoint
presentations, and even shareware programs—software
available to download free of charge for a specific trial
period—to display photos, diagrams, witness statements
and other evidence, all in the interest of making
information more understandable for the judge and jury.
With some initial training and years of practice, Muscat
now teaches other prosecutors and law students at
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and Thomas M.
Cooley Law School how to blend technology with proper
presentation techniques to achieve success at trial.
Robert Moran, director of the Homicide Division for the
Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office and Muscat’s chief,
has teamed up with Muscat to use technology in six high-
profile homicide cases since 2004, including the recent
trials of Jean Pierre Orlewicz and Alex Letkemann in the
gruesome murder of Daniel Sorensen. An accomplished
trial attorney, Moran has presented more than 100
homicide cases at trial, relying on more traditional ways of
presenting and explaining evidence. Together, with Moran
working the courtroom and Muscat behind the control
panel, the team has been praised for its seamless
presentation of opening statements, examination of
witnesses, and closing arguments.
(article continues below)
Wayne County whizzes
take courtroom technology
way beyond PowerPoint
By Taryn Hartman and Maria Dell I’Sola
As society becomes increasingly wired in the era of
iTunes and YouTube, two Wayne County prosecutors are
transmitting new technology to the courtroom with “cutting-
edge” multimedia presentations they use to present cases
at trial.
In more than half of the 60 murder cases Wayne County
Assistant Prosecutor Patrick Muscat has tried, he has
used inexpensive trial presentation software, PowerPoint
presentations, and even shareware programs—software
available to download free of charge for a specific trial
period—to display photos, diagrams, witness statements
and other evidence, all in the interest of making
information more understandable for the judge and jury.
With some initial training and years of practice, Muscat
now teaches other prosecutors and law students at
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and Thomas M.
Cooley Law School how to blend technology with proper
presentation techniques to achieve success at trial.
Robert Moran, director of the Homicide Division for the
Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office and Muscat’s chief,
has teamed up with Muscat to use technology in six high-
profile homicide cases since 2004, including the recent
trials of Jean Pierre Orlewicz and Alex Letkemann in the
gruesome murder of Daniel Sorensen. An accomplished
trial attorney, Moran has presented more than 100
homicide cases at trial, relying on more traditional ways of
presenting and explaining evidence. Together, with Moran
working the courtroom and Muscat behind the control
panel, the team has been praised for its seamless
presentation of opening statements, examination of
witnesses, and closing arguments.
(article continues below)
Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Patrick Muscat
demonstrates how he uses technology during homicide trials to
demonstrate information in a visual manner for the judge and
jury. The photo behind Muscat is of a police diver recovering
guns in New Jersey that were key pieces of evidence in a trial
involving the shooting of a Livonia police officer.
Muscat's laptop and the courtroom's screen illustrate how
Muscat highlights important elements of evidence and
converges them into comprehensive presentations (below).
Muscat highlights important elements of evidence and
converges them into comprehensive presentations (below).
“Technology should never affect a verdict,” Muscat said. “Poor technology could affect a verdict because it
confuses people. Malicious technology could affect a verdict because you lose the trust of a jury when you try to
be sneaky. But good technology shouldn’t affect any verdict. It should just make it a smoother decision-making
process.”
The first trial Moran and Muscat tried together was that of Curtis Bragg in the murder of Canton police officer Guy
Stevens in 2004. Moran’s opening statement detailed how Stevens’s and Bragg’s worlds collided when the
defendant slammed his car into the rear of the officer’s patrol car, killing the policeman. Muscat crafted a
presentation composed of photos of Stevens, a car similar to the patrol car he was driving, the crime scene, and
photos from the Michigan State Police’s accident reconstruction unit—including a photo of the victim’s and
defendant’s cars pushed together—to illustrate Moran’s words.
“It fit like a glove. It lined up the impact,” Moran recalled of the State Police photo. “The visual impact of that was
pretty amazing.
“I can describe it, I can talk about it, but when you see it, actually see it on a 100-inch screen, the effect is
devastating,” Moran continued. “And I’m not talking about prejudicial photographs—anything that’s gory or
gruesome or that’s designed to shock people. I’m just talking about photographs that are admitted at every trial to
show what they mean and how they mean. It’s much more persuasive,” to see it organized into a polished
presentation, he said.
More recently, the two teamed up for the trial of teenagers Orlewicz and Letkemann in Sorensen’s grisly murder,
where they once again used technology to help illustrate their case. Their court presentation included audio
recordings of calls the defendants had made from jail, aerial photographs, and maps of where evidence in the case
was recovered.
And apart from helping the prosecution clearly present its case, using technology actually helped quicken the trial
from a potential two weeks to 5 days, Muscat said.
Moran and Muscat also explained the importance of striking a balance between when to use and when not to use
courtroom technology for fear that it will distract the jury, citing their most recent case as an example.
“We had Alex Letkemann on the stand and the testimony was so compelling, graphic, we had to take a break at
one point,” Moran said of letting testimony speak for itself. “Some of the jurors were getting sick. Without any visual
aids, without any photographs, just him describing what he did and what he heard and what he saw was so
compelling we had to take a break. There’s an important relationship between good, old-fashioned persuasion with
a witness and information through the use of technology to help jurors understand what’s going on,” he said.
Both Muscat and Moran were quick to clarify that they do not create advanced forms of evidence like the expensive
computer re-animations often used in the testimony of expert witnesses. Rather, they are packaging the same
forms of demonstrative evidence in an innovative way, bringing the technology that most jurors use in their daily
lives into the courtroom.
“This is good lawyering,” Moran said. “It makes my job easier, it makes the juror’s job a lot easier, and I think you
can’t avoid using this now. I think jurors expect it. Judges expect it. It makes you a better lawyer.
“I think it behooves all of us, if we’re going to be competitive in the legal profession, to be ready for that, because
that’s where everything is going,” Moran continued. “The person who does it best is going to maybe not be winning
all the time but be a little more persuasive. And the jurors will listen to you a little more. And they’re going to
remember a lot more about what I showed them when I talked to them than when I just talked to them.”
confuses people. Malicious technology could affect a verdict because you lose the trust of a jury when you try to
be sneaky. But good technology shouldn’t affect any verdict. It should just make it a smoother decision-making
process.”
The first trial Moran and Muscat tried together was that of Curtis Bragg in the murder of Canton police officer Guy
Stevens in 2004. Moran’s opening statement detailed how Stevens’s and Bragg’s worlds collided when the
defendant slammed his car into the rear of the officer’s patrol car, killing the policeman. Muscat crafted a
presentation composed of photos of Stevens, a car similar to the patrol car he was driving, the crime scene, and
photos from the Michigan State Police’s accident reconstruction unit—including a photo of the victim’s and
defendant’s cars pushed together—to illustrate Moran’s words.
“It fit like a glove. It lined up the impact,” Moran recalled of the State Police photo. “The visual impact of that was
pretty amazing.
“I can describe it, I can talk about it, but when you see it, actually see it on a 100-inch screen, the effect is
devastating,” Moran continued. “And I’m not talking about prejudicial photographs—anything that’s gory or
gruesome or that’s designed to shock people. I’m just talking about photographs that are admitted at every trial to
show what they mean and how they mean. It’s much more persuasive,” to see it organized into a polished
presentation, he said.
More recently, the two teamed up for the trial of teenagers Orlewicz and Letkemann in Sorensen’s grisly murder,
where they once again used technology to help illustrate their case. Their court presentation included audio
recordings of calls the defendants had made from jail, aerial photographs, and maps of where evidence in the case
was recovered.
And apart from helping the prosecution clearly present its case, using technology actually helped quicken the trial
from a potential two weeks to 5 days, Muscat said.
Moran and Muscat also explained the importance of striking a balance between when to use and when not to use
courtroom technology for fear that it will distract the jury, citing their most recent case as an example.
“We had Alex Letkemann on the stand and the testimony was so compelling, graphic, we had to take a break at
one point,” Moran said of letting testimony speak for itself. “Some of the jurors were getting sick. Without any visual
aids, without any photographs, just him describing what he did and what he heard and what he saw was so
compelling we had to take a break. There’s an important relationship between good, old-fashioned persuasion with
a witness and information through the use of technology to help jurors understand what’s going on,” he said.
Both Muscat and Moran were quick to clarify that they do not create advanced forms of evidence like the expensive
computer re-animations often used in the testimony of expert witnesses. Rather, they are packaging the same
forms of demonstrative evidence in an innovative way, bringing the technology that most jurors use in their daily
lives into the courtroom.
“This is good lawyering,” Moran said. “It makes my job easier, it makes the juror’s job a lot easier, and I think you
can’t avoid using this now. I think jurors expect it. Judges expect it. It makes you a better lawyer.
“I think it behooves all of us, if we’re going to be competitive in the legal profession, to be ready for that, because
that’s where everything is going,” Moran continued. “The person who does it best is going to maybe not be winning
all the time but be a little more persuasive. And the jurors will listen to you a little more. And they’re going to
remember a lot more about what I showed them when I talked to them than when I just talked to them.”
Wayne County Assistant Prosecutors Robert Moran (L) and
Patrick Muscat have teamed up to present six high-profile
murder cases using computer presentations that highlight
important pieces of demonstrative evidence.
Patrick Muscat have teamed up to present six high-profile
murder cases using computer presentations that highlight
important pieces of demonstrative evidence.
Tools of the trade
Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Patrick Muscat shares his most commonly used software programs for
creating court presentations. For more suggestions, tips and tools for using technology effectively at trial, visit
Muscat’s Web site at www.thevisualtrial.com.
Sanction 2.8 by Verdict Systems
www.verdictsystems.com
Muscat’s main program is legal presentation software used to categorize, organize and display images, files, audio,
synchronized video and transcripts in a non-linear, or not pre-arranged, fashion. The program also is used by the
federal government and the United Nations in major litigation. It costs around $500 for a single-user license, with
different pricing for large purchases to outfit firms. A recently released, more advanced version called Verdical
costs around $1,000 for a single-user license.
TrialDirector 5 by Indata Corp.
www.indatacorp.com
Trial presentation software similar to Sanction, also used by the federal government and UN. Retails for around
$500 for a single-user license.
PowerPoint 2007 by Microsoft
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/default.aspx
Allows Muscat to create graphic linear (slides are pre-arranged in a specific order) presentations organizing
images, audio, video and argument slides in a persuasive manner. The program is easy to use, but Muscat
cautions that it also has a great potential for “over-use.” PowerPoint comes with Microsoft Office and in many other
software packages, and costs around $200 if purchased individually.
Irfanview by Irfan Skiljan
www.irfanview.com
Muscat calls this almost-free program one of the top sharewares in the world. Muscat uses this program daily to
edit, re-size, crop, transfer, copy, and convert digital images. Using this program in conjunction with PowerPoint
cuts his preparation time in half. But since it’s shareware—available at no charge for a trial period—Muscat said
those who use it for commercial purposes should send a donation to the program’s author.
FastStone Image Viewer 3.5 and FastStone Capture 6.0 by FastStone.
www.faststone.org
Similar to Irfanview, Muscat uses these digital image viewer and screen capture programs primarily to take
screenshots of websites and will then use Irfanview to do anything further with the digital image. The viewer is
freeware (software that is copyrighted but available free of charge) and the Capture program is shareware.
Camtasia Studio 5 by TechSmith
www.techsmith.com
Advanced video editing software used for capturing streaming video, making DVD movies, converting audio and
video files, stripping audio from video, and for making step-by-step computer tutorials, which are recordings of a
computer screen. Software retails for around $300.
Audacity by Sourceforge
www.audacity.sourceforge.net
Open-source (users can modify and improve it) software used for recording and editing audio, and can also open
most audio sources and covert them to universal formats like “.wav” files. Muscat uses the shareware mainly to edit
audio files.
VLC Media Player by Videolan
www.videolan.org
This is a freeware media program that can often play video files that other programs cannot. Muscat uses it
sparingly, usually to play a video format that isn’t compatible with other media players.
Gyration Air Mouse by Gyration
http://www.gyration.com/?l=en#productOverview/miceKeyboards
This excellent wireless mouse is called an “air” mouse because, with practice, presenters can move it in the same
manner as a desktop mouse. Depending on the model, it has a range of anywhere from 30 to 100 feet and works
well with Sanction in court. Older versions are available on eBay for $50 and new versions for around $75.
Cyberlink PowerDVD by Cyberlink
www.cyberlink.com
Software program that plays DVDs on a computer. While most media players do this, this particular program is
different because it plays raw DVD files. If provided a legal copy of a DVD via email, save it to a computer’s hard
drive and this software program will play those filed without requiring the original DVD. Muscat often receives police
interviews or surveillance footage as DVDs, and instead of carrying multiple discs he copies the files to his
computer’s hard drive and uses this progam to play them. He said he finds it very handy for its price, around $50.
For any of the retail software programs mentioned, you can often find older versions on eBay for drastically
reduced prices. Only advanced users have a need for the newest versions of many of these programs, and older
versions are usually sufficient for use in a legal setting.
You should only buy new and properly licensed software on eBay or any other Web site. If you purchased a used
copy of any software or duplicate someone else’s product code, you could be committing copyright infringement.
(Mention of a company, product, or service does not indicate endorsement or support by Detroit Legal News
Publishing or the authors.)
--BY TARYN HARTMAN AND MARIA DELL I’SOLA
This article is displayed on this website with
permission of Motion Magazine! snd the Detroit
Legal News.
Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Patrick Muscat shares his most commonly used software programs for
creating court presentations. For more suggestions, tips and tools for using technology effectively at trial, visit
Muscat’s Web site at www.thevisualtrial.com.
Sanction 2.8 by Verdict Systems
www.verdictsystems.com
Muscat’s main program is legal presentation software used to categorize, organize and display images, files, audio,
synchronized video and transcripts in a non-linear, or not pre-arranged, fashion. The program also is used by the
federal government and the United Nations in major litigation. It costs around $500 for a single-user license, with
different pricing for large purchases to outfit firms. A recently released, more advanced version called Verdical
costs around $1,000 for a single-user license.
TrialDirector 5 by Indata Corp.
www.indatacorp.com
Trial presentation software similar to Sanction, also used by the federal government and UN. Retails for around
$500 for a single-user license.
PowerPoint 2007 by Microsoft
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/powerpoint/default.aspx
Allows Muscat to create graphic linear (slides are pre-arranged in a specific order) presentations organizing
images, audio, video and argument slides in a persuasive manner. The program is easy to use, but Muscat
cautions that it also has a great potential for “over-use.” PowerPoint comes with Microsoft Office and in many other
software packages, and costs around $200 if purchased individually.
Irfanview by Irfan Skiljan
www.irfanview.com
Muscat calls this almost-free program one of the top sharewares in the world. Muscat uses this program daily to
edit, re-size, crop, transfer, copy, and convert digital images. Using this program in conjunction with PowerPoint
cuts his preparation time in half. But since it’s shareware—available at no charge for a trial period—Muscat said
those who use it for commercial purposes should send a donation to the program’s author.
FastStone Image Viewer 3.5 and FastStone Capture 6.0 by FastStone.
www.faststone.org
Similar to Irfanview, Muscat uses these digital image viewer and screen capture programs primarily to take
screenshots of websites and will then use Irfanview to do anything further with the digital image. The viewer is
freeware (software that is copyrighted but available free of charge) and the Capture program is shareware.
Camtasia Studio 5 by TechSmith
www.techsmith.com
Advanced video editing software used for capturing streaming video, making DVD movies, converting audio and
video files, stripping audio from video, and for making step-by-step computer tutorials, which are recordings of a
computer screen. Software retails for around $300.
Audacity by Sourceforge
www.audacity.sourceforge.net
Open-source (users can modify and improve it) software used for recording and editing audio, and can also open
most audio sources and covert them to universal formats like “.wav” files. Muscat uses the shareware mainly to edit
audio files.
VLC Media Player by Videolan
www.videolan.org
This is a freeware media program that can often play video files that other programs cannot. Muscat uses it
sparingly, usually to play a video format that isn’t compatible with other media players.
Gyration Air Mouse by Gyration
http://www.gyration.com/?l=en#productOverview/miceKeyboards
This excellent wireless mouse is called an “air” mouse because, with practice, presenters can move it in the same
manner as a desktop mouse. Depending on the model, it has a range of anywhere from 30 to 100 feet and works
well with Sanction in court. Older versions are available on eBay for $50 and new versions for around $75.
Cyberlink PowerDVD by Cyberlink
www.cyberlink.com
Software program that plays DVDs on a computer. While most media players do this, this particular program is
different because it plays raw DVD files. If provided a legal copy of a DVD via email, save it to a computer’s hard
drive and this software program will play those filed without requiring the original DVD. Muscat often receives police
interviews or surveillance footage as DVDs, and instead of carrying multiple discs he copies the files to his
computer’s hard drive and uses this progam to play them. He said he finds it very handy for its price, around $50.
For any of the retail software programs mentioned, you can often find older versions on eBay for drastically
reduced prices. Only advanced users have a need for the newest versions of many of these programs, and older
versions are usually sufficient for use in a legal setting.
You should only buy new and properly licensed software on eBay or any other Web site. If you purchased a used
copy of any software or duplicate someone else’s product code, you could be committing copyright infringement.
(Mention of a company, product, or service does not indicate endorsement or support by Detroit Legal News
Publishing or the authors.)
--BY TARYN HARTMAN AND MARIA DELL I’SOLA
This article is displayed on this website with
permission of Motion Magazine! snd the Detroit
Legal News.
| MOTION MAGAZINE! Premier Edition Fall 2008 Motion Magazine! is published by Detroit Legal News and is direct-mailed to attorneys and niche professionals of southeastern Michigan’s legal community. |